university re-visited

I was flipping through an old file on my computer and I found this essay on ethics. It may be a little dry, but I like it. So..I decided to post it.

The first thing that comes to mind when asked ‘why ought one be ethical’ is to say that their conscience would be afflicted if they were not ethical. The question then becomes what is the conscience? I believe that the conscience is a construct of society which subconsciously and uncontrollably means that it is external, societal forces which deem what is ethical. Therefore, if external forces are what define ethics; we must look to the outside as to why we ought to be ethical. This makes the reason that one ought to be ethical simple, one ought to be ethical to conform to society.
This leaves me, personally, with an ethical conundrum. In order to function in society one has to be aware of ethics, whether one chooses to follow them or not. Kant argues that “we can readily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done from duty, or from a selfish view” (Kant 297). Kant points out that it is out of duty to society that people should act ethically: “Now an action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, and consequently the maxim that I should follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations” (Kant 299). However, on the other side of the coin, one questions the method in which these societal ethics and the laws which Kant deems important enough to define our moral code came into fruition.
Nietzsche points out that “no one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in certain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of his being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. This is not the result of and individual attention, of a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any ‘ideal man,’ or ‘ideal happiness’ or ‘ideal morality’ with him” (314). When unpacking this in relation to ethics, Nietzsche is basically arguing that a person’s very being is dependent upon all that has happened before him and everything that is to come and I conclude that if there is no ideal to strive for, a person is only performing what he deems will keep him fit for society. This is an unconscious decision which is not a decision at all because the ‘truths’ of society are so engrained into a person that they are unable to escape and therefore it is society which deems ethics yet again.
The original question of this essay is, “why ought one be ethical”? The answer which I have delineated for the last couple of pages are simply that people ought to be ethical in order to conform to society; however, I do not think that everyone ought to be ethical and thus ensues an ethical conundrum. First of all, ethics vary within different cultures which becomes evident during war times and whose juridical systems deem which ethics are the most ethical (not to sound redundant). Second of all, even within the same culture, if everyone were ethical, how would we even know the difference? Also, there is an inherent problem with the history which defines our ethics.
Historically, it was the leaders with the best armies and/or propaganda that deemed what was right. This has not changed and will never change. This makes ethics very ethnocentric. Most societies began out of violence and greed and then once set up are the very people who formulate a moral code for the masses without even knowing it. The fact that it is greed and violence which put leaders in control is unethical itself which makes the entire notion of ethics ludicrous.
The question of ethics now comes under fire, which deems the question of this essay ridiculous. When traced, my own personal ethics can be traced to my parents, which inevitably winds up at the Judeo-Christian model of morality found in the Bible. The very nature of the bible then comes into question. It is simply a book based on many parables written by men, apparently under the influence of God, who say very lofty and at times contradictory things. People have used this model of ethics to do very unethical things like bomb buildings, kill people, and wage war on countries that do not see eye to eye with what political leaders deem correct. It is hard to swallow that this is what our society’s moral code is based upon and therefore it makes the question, ‘why ought one be ethical’ a really hard one to answer and the very nature of the question ridiculous.
If it the question was, “why is one ethical” it would be much easier to turn to society and explain that most people want to avoid detainment and chastisement and therefore conform to the rules of society. I do not know if people ought to be ethical. If one wants to fit into the construct that is society, by all means, they must be ethical; however, if there is an inherent problem with the ethics that society has deemed necessity, they will never change unless there are people who act unethically according to the laws of their particular society.
If a person believes in the society in which they live, they ought to act ethically at all costs. If, however, they view inherent problems with the doctrines of the society in which they live, it would be impossible for them to act ethically under the construct of their particular society. When this is the case, if the questioner of society is a powerful enough figure, there is violence and thus that questioner now becomes the moral leader and the masses simply follow whoever’s ethics are the most powerful at the time (i.e., Constantine making Christianity the thing to do in Rome). Ethics, therefore, are ever changing and the only reason to be ethical is to conform to society in which one currently lives.







Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative”. Philosophy: History and

Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:

McGraw Hill, 2003.

Nietzsche, Freiderich. “Turning Values Upside Down”. Philosophy: History

and Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:

McGraw Hill, 2003.