Ethics and Philosophy

¶ … ethical theory hinges on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers since Aristotle have debated the meaning of morality for thousands of years. The idea that everyone has an individual opinion of right vs. wrong equates to moral relativism.

Are morals relative or absolute? Are actions inherently good or bad, regardless of their consequences? Or are consequences the summon bonum? And is an action good or right because of an absolute, even divine truth? This student raises an important issue: is, in Protagoras's words, "man the measure of all things"? Aren't our moral imperatives based on cultural norms, subject to individual interpretations? Indeed, several philosophers might agree with a strictly relativistic view on ethics, but most shy away from such muddy waters because of the various pitfalls of moral relativism.

Christian ethics dictate that there is an absolute religious conception of right and wrong. Within this deified version of morality, an eternal, unyielding truth prevails. Otherwise known as a deontological view, moral absolutism would imply that any action is inherently good or bad, to be judged by a stringent set of guidelines. Christian ethics are based on the dictums of the church and its laws, which in turn are based on their sacred texts.

There is no room for relativism within a strict Christian ethical format; that kind of ambiguity is seen as dangerous because of potential abuse. Even without the religious framework, most philosophers frown upon moral relativism. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that basic human nature is evil and brutish, and that without societal laws people would resort to harmful behavior. Indeed, this position seems conservative and extremist but when we witness the pitfalls of human behavior this stance is not entirely farfetched.

John Locke took Hobbes's theories one step further and promoted personal freedom from within a lawful framework. Dutch philosopher Spinoza would have agreed that each person must decide for him or herself the nature of right and wrong in any situation. However, Spinoza also would have encouraged a level of introspection and allegiance to the "golden rule." David Hume and Adam Smith would also have argued that we must "do unto others," for our actions must be based on an understanding of the needs of our fellow man.

But German philosopher Immanuel Kant expanded on ethical theory by suggesting that the consequences of actions are tantamount to the actions themselves. Kant would have argued that in these case studies, the issue of right or wrong, good or bad, rests on the results. Kant's categorical imperative essentially restates the golden rule: intend unto others as you would unto yourself. According to Kant, our ethics and morals must be motivated also by reason, devoid of emotions. While it is tempting to relegate ethics to societal codes and strip them.