Ethics and morality: definitions and philosophical foundations

Ethics and Morality: Analysis of a Statement

The statement: 'It is my duty to speak up if I see someone getting hurt, even if it involves great risk to myself', is one with which I agree, because to speak up on someone else's behalf when he or she is getting hurt by another person or group is to exercise moral virtue, that is, to interfere positively and rationally when someone (or some group) is doing something irrational and therefore negative to someone else. A moral person knows right from wrong, which is a key aspect of moral ethics. Knowing right from wrong, a moral person striving toward virtue (as Aristotle suggests) is able to apply these understandings of right vs. wrong to everyday life. To interfere on someone else's behalf if that other person is getting hurt, either by another person; a group; or perhaps even himself or herself, is a moral virtue. All human beings have the right to be treated rationally and respectfully (people will do this when they possess human virtues, through experience and education. No one should be acted upon negatively due to another individual's irrationality and lack of education leading to an understanding and ability to practice moral virtue. In order for me to be virtuous when I see someone getting hurt, I must act rationally and speak up when another person is being hurt, even at risk to myself.

One thing that can and all too often does interfere with acting morally and ethically, if, say, a person is being hurt by another person or group, is that one may fear retribution from the person or group later on, or even fear having the person or group turn against one right then there, and thus become the new target instead of the person first being hurt. One historical example of this sort of dynamic has to do with the way that, during the World War II Holocaust, there were numerous instances during which various European peoples could, if they dared, to speak out against the Nazis and their widespread persecution of Jews throughout Europe. To be fair and objective, there were in fact many brave and selfless individuals in every European country who did in fact "go against the grain," i.e., speak up against Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but at great risk to themselves. To be a member back then of one of the various resistance movements against Nazism throughout Europe was to clearly practice moral virtue and to speak up against a group hurting another group. But it took enormous courage (emotional courage and the courage of one's convictions). Further, if one were to be caught by the Nazis being a resistance fighter, one would be taken prisoner and hanged. Those who practiced moral and ethical virtues to the greatest extent during the Holocaust, though, did speak out, even at their own potential peril, since this was the moral and ethical thing to do although obviously not the easy thing.

But the majority of non-Jewish Europeans did not try to interfere with the Nazis hurting the Jews nearly as much as should have been done. This was for the same reason people often do not speak up if someone else if being hurt even if they know they should - they feel afraid of being attacked and/or persecuted themselves. In this case, European people had to choose if they would act according to human virtue, ethics, and moral standards and speak out against the Nazis, or if they would instead say nothing and in that way stay out of danger themselves.