My understanding is that ethics is just the moral code someone lives by and that can be different for everyone. Some people think euthanasia is OK and it would be unethical to force a person to live in great pain. Others consider it to be unethical to kill someone no matter what the resons are.
So my question is, do you think there is one standard of morality that defines what is ethical or do you think ethics is just the set of morals that a person thinks is right?
I would appreciate it if you could give me the reasons why you think what you do. If you think religion defines ethics, do you think a person of a different religion that yours is unethical?
2006-11-30 15:58:34 · 7 answers · asked by haiku_katie 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ethics has got to do with a hierarchy of values which every single man establishes for his ownself. If you obey that hierarchy of your own you are ethical.
2006-12-01 10:23:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question and understanding is a little off. Euthanasia is a moral question, not ethical. If a doctor were to HELP a suffering person to die it would be an ethical question. Ethics aren't a moral code, a moral code is a moral code. Ethics refers to a code of conduct that is much less arbitrary than morality. For example, it is unethical to take credit for some else's work. It is unethical to cheat on a test. It is unethical to tell half truths in order to deceive someone. It is unethical to to stay quiet if you see someone selling drugs at a high school.
Religions are all about morality and usually are not concerned with ethics. Ethics are a humanist concept.
2006-11-30 16:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by Michael da Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes there is a standard of morality that defines what is right and wrong.
God defines it as the ten commandments and expounds on them in the Bible.
Moral relativism which is 'do what you think is right' is untenable. If one thinks its right to kill, another that it is right to defy authority, and another it is right to steal anarchy would soon prevail. Therefore following ones own ethics is impossible there has to be a set of measures that are put upon all of us. Do not murder for instance.
Since we cannot set the rules ourselves (take Hitler for instance) then an outside body must and that can only be the Creator Himself.
2006-11-30 16:11:37 · answer #3 · answered by Zed 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, ethics are defined by Karma. If something will spread throughout the system in a positive way then it is ethical. If it will cause hurt and pain then it is unethical.
- Atmadeepo Bhava -
2006-11-30 16:04:27 · answer #4 · answered by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The source of a moral code must ultimately be evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species. A society which lives by a sound moral code will survive preferably to one which does not. This means that the proper test to apply to a proposed action is: will this action benefit society, be a detriment, or have negligible effect? It is obvious enough that things such as murder and theft are a detriment to any society, so these are pretty universally called immoral.
Religions claim to be the repository of moral codes, but it is obvious from the foregoing that such claims are bogus.
2006-11-30 16:10:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Golden Rule.
More specifically - Don't hurt others unnecessarily and work for the common good.
A
2006-11-30 16:06:49 · answer #6 · answered by Alan 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
does this conman define ethics?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J3rAcVdDks
2006-11-30 16:01:53 · answer #7 · answered by Dr. Brooke 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋