Moral theories and ethical frameworks

¶ … personal theory of good and evil, right and wrong moral agent is a person capable of rational understanding. An entity such as a nation, a group or a corporation is not such an entity. Rather, these constructions are human-created institutions made up of conglomerates of human beings. Unlike a single, moral human individual, a person cannot be overthrown, like a country, and then reformulated under a new constitution. A person cannot be merged with another entity, like a corporation. The human individual is the fundamental unit of every society or social bond, like the family.

The individual has moral obligations to all other human beings. He or she is part of a series of communities that make up the greater world. Although the human obligation to animals might not be equal to humans, because animals are not of the same species and therefore humans are not tied to them with same level of obligation, humans must still treat animals with respect, beyond the level of respect humans might extend to non-sentient property.

Humans have responsibility to treat the persons whom they are tied to with a network of social obligations with the greatest care, like friends and family members. However, this does not mean humans can ignore the needs of other persons who make up other cultures, groups, and nations, even if the obligations to these other person may not be as immediate. Plants and aspects of the non-sentient environment should be treated with respect, because of one does not; the welfare of all persons will be endangered.

The community of individuals largely determines what is right or wrong. For example, it is considered 'right' in our society that a parent support their child until the child is 18 while in other, past societies it was necessary and thus 'right' for a child to be independent at a much earlier age. When human life was shorter, and families were larger and poorer, this was understandable and not necessarily 'wrong,' given the historical context.

While much is relative, however, the integrity of the person to be free and to not be enslaved must not be impinged upon, unless that person transgresses the laws of the community. But there is no good or evil like a divine force, these notions are rooted in social judgments and the evolution of the society.

In contrast to this contextual view of ethics, a Kantian might protest. The Kantian asks -- if I were to set the law for all time, what would this be, and how should I act accordingly? In other words, because a person cannot predict the consequences of his or her actions, it is better to follow a defined moral law. It is right to save a person from drowning, and even if that person turns out to be a murderer, one could not know that the person would become a murderer at the time the person was saved. Thus, there is excuse to refuse to save a drowning man or woman.

On a 'gut' level, one might say, over-rationalizing one's ethnical decisions is incorrect -- but this works against Kant in some areas, as one might rationalize the idea that 'obeying the law is a good thing' to use this as an excuse to not lie, cheat, and conceal the truth to save a Jewish person in Nazi Germany. The ultimate judgment of a decision should be -- does this help or harm human life, given what I know at present and my social context? Even moral laws can be wrong in some contexts, and one cannot predict the consequences of the life someone saves. Still, one must temper moral action with one's guess as to what the future might be, as a result of one's actions.

This suggests that the ideal moral person is someone capable of compassion, of seeing his or her own humanity in the eyes of others, but who is also rational enough not to act purely out of emotion. Rational empathy is the ideal ethical aspiration.