It seems that all I ever do on here is share what I write in my blog...well, today is no exception. But I thought you guys might like this anyway:
Yesterday, an apparent contradiction surfaced in my counseling session. How could I, knowing that the parking rules on campus specify that I shouldn't park in a certain place and breaking those rules consistently, then turn around and have a problem when someone enforces them in an irregular manner (ie, wait a month to do anything about it)?
Today, I solved the contradiction during my exercise session. This time, I chose to walk around an indoor track rather than outside (I've already got enough sunburn as it is) and it occurred to me that ethical behavior is not defined as following the rules. After all, if this were the case, then we could say members of the Nazi party were being ethical when they followed their orders to kill Jews. Conversely, we as a nation (meaning the United States) hold it to be true that our founding fathers were being ethical when they defied the rules set forth by King George of which they did not agree. Clearly then, the rules imposed by people do not define what is ethical and what is not.
As such, there is no contradiction when I disobey parking regulations that I think are silly and which I don't agree with but then have a problem with their uneven enforcement. Although I may not agree with a rule, I do have a problem when someone decides not to enforce it one day and then the next day all of the sudden decides that the rule matters suddenly and then the enforcement comes in. Imagine living in a society in which you never knew on what day the rule of law would prevail. Try bringing your case before the Supreme Court and having a fair trial for the duration except on the final day when one of the Justices declare, "You know what, today the laws of our society don't matter so I'm not doing anything about this case." If you can see a small issue as equally important in terms of personal ethics as a really huge issue, then it becomes clear what type of person you are dealing with.
Since it's clear that ethics do not derive from rules, I am left with only one conclusion to make: ethics are the result of personal beliefs. A Christian would say some things were ethical while a Muslim would say other things, and it's pretty clear that they would disagree on some points. So if each side says they pursue ethical behavior, how can you tell which is right and which is not?
The only way to know is through negation. Which set of beliefs undermines free speech? Personal liberty? The right to believe what you want? What set of ethics violate basic human rights? Viewed this way, it can be seen that there are good ethics and bad ethics. The term "ethics" by itself does not mean a higher standard of behavior which is honest and upright. After all, how do we define such terms? Higher as opposed to what? Honest in what context (ie, honest to yourself, honest to others, or honest to society)? Upright in terms of what a holy book has told you or what you have come to believe on your own? Both the book and your own beliefs may be fallible.
As a result, I prefer not to use the word "ethics" in reference to a broad standard for everyone. A more accurate definition I feel is: "the set of beliefs and principles which a person or group of people have set as their guideline for moral behavior."
People clash easily because they each believe they are in the right of it while not seeing that their beliefs are not overwhelmingly good standards that everyone should adhere to- such standards are merely what they have chosen to follow. Whether such beliefs are good for someone else or not is of no consequence. In fact, using my definition, we may say that they are not good for other people.
One example is the 909 deaths at Jonestown orchestrated by Jim Jones. Here is a good image from wikipedia that gives you an idea:
I believe I may also say with confidence that terrorists believe that exploding themselves in order to blow up a bus of civilians is ethical behavior in that they are participating in a holy war in which they are guaranteed a place in paradise due to their own sacrifice. What the terrorists have not considered is that, if their target are idolators who do not follow the proper way of life and are going against the word of their god, then such people will not be allowed into paradise. Furthermore, the victims of the attack will not have a chance to redeem their ways according to what the terrorists believe is the true way. This is the most important fallacy to understand about Muslim terrorists: they do not care about saving the souls of others, they feel that their enemy is beyond redemption and no amount of preaching or goodwill will change anything. Yet if you ask them, they will say that they are doing the will of Allah, which to them is ethical behavior.
Take a look at the following image and see if you can find any ethics herein:
In this way, it's clear that ethics is not something that people can abitarily decide for themselves. Yet at the same time, it's different for everyone. The only way to find out what is ethical and what is not is to eliminate what we know to be unethical behavior.
