Ethical_Discussions_Reflection

Ethical discussions, to me, are answered based off an individual’s personal beliefs, developed through past experiences, social upbringing, and logical reasoning. It is through these tools that a person develops their own personal code of ethics. This code of ethics can remain steady, or be changed abruptly when new experiences or logic is presented that challenge existing ethical beliefs. Ethics is also defined by a collective agreement by a group of people as to what is right and wrong. These are seen through governments and other bodies developed by others. These collective ethics can also remain static for some time, and change abruptly. Examples of this include laws that are changed as the people’s culture changes and becomes inconsistent with the new collective norms. I follow a system similar to Immanuel Kant and base my moral system primarily on reasoned arguments. If I do this action, will it hurt others' Would I be hurt if someone else did this to me' If so, then I probably shouldn’t do it. I have followed this principle long before I considered ethics academically. My work ethics revolve around the belief that if I hired someone, then they should work hard and efficiently for the money I pay them, therefore the company I work for should get a hard-working and effective employee. There is, however, a significant difference between my beliefs and Kant’s. According to Kant, human morality stems from something outside of the natural order of things. That is, because humans reason and think, that they are somehow above or outside the natural world. Scientifically, we know that humans are a subset of apes, and that we are only capable of reason due to evolutionary selection for large brains. There is nothing transcendental about us. Secondly, since the time of Kant, many mammals have shown tremendous cognitive capabilities, and demonstrate a working mind capable of thought and reasoning. Because of this, I feel that humans are not a transcendental species. Other ethical principles that I have evaluated and rejected include Theological Voluntarism. The argument states that a supreme being directly wills what is right and wrong, with no room for compromise. As an atheist, I cannot accept this logic. Ethical decrees from a higher power might work in theory, before you begin to ask questions such as “which god makes the ethics'” Because there have been so many gods throughout the centuries, each giving moral commands, which ones are in effect' The one most popular today' The one you happen to believe in' This line of thinking for me comes to a stopping point here because it becomes a completely different line of discussion, as I focus on a more reasoned argument. Considering the previous gay marriage discussion, this is a straightforward example of Kant ethics vs theological voluntarism. Logically, there is no difference between the marriage of two men or women and one man and one woman. Based on a Kant perspective, there would be no issue here and the argument would have been over long ago. However, there are many who believe that God directly dictates in the bible that no gay marriage licenses should be handed out. Their arguments are powerful to believers and aggressive in frequency, so they have a strong following. The argument we see here is purely emotional. If the bible says it, that settles it. No evidence is given for their belief. The other side of the argument is primarily reason-based. If all humans are equal, they should all get equal rights. It’s hard to say whether one side could convince the other, since both have different foundations on which to lay their arguments. My moral and ethical beliefs are fairly well-developed at this stage of my life. Through mainly reason and past experiences, I have come to many moral conclusions as to what is important in life, how to take care of others, and how to take care of myself. I feel that while I have a solid moral belief system, it is capable of change, however only if new logic or evidence comes along that requires I change my beliefs to be consistent.