5c

Good God why is there so much writing in this reader!!!  As I slump into the point of no return mentally, I feel my grasp on ethics leaves a lot to be desired. Why is not as simple as, just don't act like an idiot! I dread to think how long this is going to take me but so help me I will smash apart this reader until it is tiny acceptable pieces!!So.. here we go.

ETHICS!

Well what is it, briefly- ethics comes from the thoughts around good and proper ways to behave. It is the understanding that our actions have a ripple affect on those around us. Therefore an action can go from being purely personal, to professional, to organisational to societal! ethics and morals go hand in hand with religion and law, both with the aim of creating a society based on the idea of being 'good'. Ethics comes from the Greek word, Ethos, meaning 'character'. Aristotle suggested virtue in only true through habitual action. (I.e- you cant be good once and call your self a good person, you need to do it all the time). The virtue is the middle ground, i.e- for me, I don't like to be being really early, or extremely late, however being professionally punctual all the time has become my virtue.

What the theorists said...

HOBBES- 1651, viewed ethics as a way of creating 'social harmony' through conduct of moral rules, followed by all under the social contract that if one person does, every one else will too. He suggested that if these rules were not adhered to, the world would be in a constant state of war. Use morality as rules that benefit everyone.
I think Hobbes has a good point, and for the most part i'd like to believe that people are good, and have morals. However not everyone does follow the laws put in place by government let alone moral guidelines.

KANT- 1779, believed that you should never lie, no matter what the circumstances. He believed that you should always help someone no matter what your gain or lack there of, would be. He suggested if we were forbidden from lying, then trust between people would be higher, whereas if it is allowed, it would become the done thing and therefore no one would ever believe one another.
           OOOOOOOOH. I like Kant just because he makes me think. I think he is wrong, but I am thinking none the less. I consider myself a very honest person, perhaps at times, a little too honest. I distance myself from liars and try to avoid lying at all costs. HOWEVER... I do think some times there are times when good people are hurt by unnecessary honesty. The term 'white lie' hasn't just made itself up, its come from these times when your fattest, ugliest friend really needs to hear that she looks fantastic, or the lovely ex boyfriend who asks, but really doesn't need his ego hurt any more by the admittance that your new guy is far better looking. Lying, leads to mistrust, YES, but some times the best moral thing to do is to perhaps not tell the whole truth. I find it quite small minded of Kant to suggest that all situations can be painted with the same brush of honesty being the best policy.
Also, were we in a world, where lying is forbidden, there would always be one person who breaks the rule, and that could lead to catastrophic outcomes purely because no one ever suspected it to be a non truth...

MILL- 1861, developed the idea of Moral obligation... making a decision that benefits the greatest number of people. Unlike Kant, Mill would tell a lie if it was a way to end something far worse.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES!

Consequentialism- is the view that the worth of an action is only judged on the value of its consequential outcomes, and is linked with Utilitarianism ( making decisions to benefit the greatest number of people) Kant would disagree with Consequentialism because he believed in no bad actions even if it was for the right reasons. I think perhaps consequentialism would be an area where the term 'moral dilemma' probably pops up quite often.

Deontology- actions judged by their adherence to rules. I think its fair to say Kant was a Deontologist. Deontology suggests that the value of an action is based upon its failure or success of following the rules, with no consideration for the situation.

Virtue ethics- an aspect of ones character considered morally good or positive. I think surrounds the idea of 'if they meant well'...its ok.

E.g: The Rule- Do not step on the grass
        The situation- A person is injured on the grass
Consequentialism approach: helping the person is the right thing to do because you have benefitted them, with ripple effect to their family, work colleagues, Boss, and so on and so forth.
Deontologist approach: You cannot step on the grass because that is the rules.
Virtue Ethicist: stepping on the grass is ok because you want to help some one and do a good deed, there's nothing in it for you, but you believed it to be the right thing to do at the time but you don't make a habit of standing on the grass for no reason.

COMPARATIVE ETHICS: Understands that 'good' or 'bad', 'acceptable' or 'not acceptable' changes due to circumstance of time, place and society. It is not set in stone. Rather than 'normative ethics' which suggests what society should be like. Plato suggests that comparative ethics is not what is, but what it seems to be at the time in that area.

MORALS AND ETHICS

Devlin, 1959: suggested that private behaviour should be regulated by morality derived from Christianity. That personal private acts against this morality affect public cohesion.

Hart, 1963: argued that the laws purpose is to prevent harmful acts, which affect others , such as theft etc. He suggested that there can be no common morality because society and the people within it are too different, and its the minimum content of natural law that is needed for society to function properly.

JS MILLS: The Harm Principle. The idea that people's actions should only be limited so that they don't 'harm' anyone else. Again the modern term would be the ' they're alright, as long as they're not hurting anyone'...

PROFESSION vs OCCUPATION

Occupation= a job that you do, a job that you occupy
Profession= must be trained, be of a certain intellectual standard, provide service to society.
Further elements of 'profession': sometimes you need a licence to practice, you get judged on your behaviour and work.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

So err, this is where we get into the nitty gritty bit. At the last campus session with Alan we discussed professional ethics. To do so we split in 2. What it means to be a professional, and what is ethics. I think the key thing to remember when it comes to professional ethics, is the ripple effect. When you are in a professional position, more is expected of you. The ripple of your actions is greater. For example, a doctor (who has had extensive training, has a licence, continues to do exams and is checked back on) has a greater responsibility than going to work treating some one and leaving.
The doctor has trust put in him by the patient, due to the extensive training. Therefore there are a number of expectations. The doctor has a duty to the patient, and therefore the patients family and friends, the patients work colleagues and boss who are changing there plans to cover the absent employee, the doctor has a duty as an employee themselves to the hospital to follow the rules and regulations set in place, as well as the ethical obligations of being a 'good' employee (i.e turning up on time, working hard). If the doctor is private, there is an even higher expectation on them due to the cost of their time, where as if the doctor is NHS their action then also affect the view of the NHS to society. This affects the trust that society puts in the NHS or doctors in general and so on ...