Defend the Ethics of Your

Defend the Ethics of Your Values by Using One or More of the Four Kinds of Ethical Theories

Personal values development

Although it may sound strange, given that religious values have not formed the core of my moral development, the ethical theory with which I most identify is that of Kantian deontological or duty-based ethical theory. I believe that certain moral values are absolute, and cannot be distilled with situational variables. These moral values include tolerance, respect for other human beings, and the need to make meaning out of one's existence beyond merely serving one's material desires and needs. While some aspects of various ethical systems may vary between cultures, for a human being or a society to be ethically functional, there must be some core of moral values to support its rules and tenants. This is why, over the course of my moral development, I have defined my moral identity as a search for absolute truths. My beliefs in the value of anti-materialism, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and other issues have changed over time, but they changed and grew more sound and certain as I created a more coherent ethical code for myself.

One of the reasons I am less sympathetic to utilitarianism or consequential ethics than other philosophical theories is because utilitarianism stresses satisfying the needs of the greatest number of individuals, in a material sense. While this may sound democratic in theory, the question always arises -- what majority, of what group of people? The majority of one's own group or one's own nation or all humanity? For example, the individuals who orchestrated some of the deals that gave rise to the current credit crisis might have rationalized that their actions served a common good, because they served the majority of their shareholders, families, and colleagues. Yet the majority needs of all of society were not upheld, and many innocent individuals were hurt because of the subsequent recession that occurred. It is not in human nature to fairly perceive 'the majority' as the whole of humanity -- we pick and choose what majority we satisfy, when we are engaged in utilitarian thinking.

Kant would respond to these utilitarian bankers that to take risks with other people's money and to encourage financially ignorant individuals to take out mortgages was a violation of the principles of trust and ethics that must underlie every professional transaction. I agree with such an estimation, and also believe the current recession illustrates how satisfying material wants and desire is never enough to sustain a functional society: I have defined materialism very low upon my personal list of priorities as a result of a great deal of soul-searching.

The banking crisis is an excellent example of how people rationalized that 'the ends justifies the means,' namely that high levels of risk and unethical practices were acceptable, if a large profit could be incurred. The results of actions are unpredictable, advised Kant, therefore the rightness of the action must be emphasized, not the supposed consequence. If the leaders of our national financial institutions had asked 'are these moral actions right, ethically speaking, from the point-of-view of my profession' rather than 'will these moral actions make money,' the world financial crisis would never have occurred.

Utilitarianism also tends to deemphasize minority rights -- but merely because a group is in the minority does not mean that it is engaged in a moral wrong. This can be seen in the current debate over gay marriage. Many people stress that marriage is 'naturally' between a man and a woman, simply because the majority of the population is heterosexual. However, by safeguarding only majority rights, African-Americans and other historically-discriminated against groups would never have been allowed to enjoy the promise of the American dream. Kantian principles demand upholding the moral integrity of all human beings, regardless of perceived consequences. During the American Civil Rights movement, many opponents of integration claimed that the will of the majority and its desire for segregation was justified because of the violence integration would cause. The predicted consequence over the long-term did not occur and now integration is the norm. Similarly, opponents to gay rights allege that dire consequences will ensue if gay marriage and other gay rights are legalized. They say more people will become gay, anti-gay violence will transpire and thus justify overlooking simple, eternal moral laws of human justice. On this debate, once again, I side with Kant -- moral laws and respect for the rights of others must stand for all time.

I feel particularly sensitive about this issue given my own moral journey on the subject. Like many people, I was brought up in a homophobic environment that was anti-gay. I was encouraged to feel disgust about gay marriage, and I confused my gut feelings with my moral compass. Now that my moral compass is rooted in principle, rather than emotions alone, I have come to support gay marriage. I had to look beyond the words and will of the majority of those around me, and find a principle that was universally true, rooted in humanity.