Introduction<\/p>\n
Times has developed several hundreds of various and different ethical discourse that have been proven to work very well in certain situations but are terribly wrong in other circumstances. It is thus almost always obligatory to find the best ethical system that will work and pass the tests of plausibility and veracity. <\/p>\n
In order that for one to be able to identify and develop the best possible personal ethical system, he or she must be able to identify the broader aspects of their intention. An ethical system could be based on any of the following:Duty: this is when there is an obligation that is morally developed or raised as a commitment that drives a person to act in a specific way but what is right or wrong is determined by a separate authority.Entitlement: this is when the individual person determines what he or she deems to be of his or her own best interest with very minimal considerations as to their relationships or the needs of others. Goal: such a system would basically focus on the ultimate purpose or final outcome for the reason for which the system is developed; it may be local or global.<\/p>\n
Humanistic: these are beliefs that have their foundation on the extremities of human psyche; they may be good or bad and with or without directions from a third party authority. They are what have been normally referred to us human nature ethics or secular humanism.<\/p>\n
Relativistic: this is a more personalized approach to ethics. It is a system that is quite subjective and focuses more on a person\u2019s experiences as his or her main reason for making a judgment call, in such a system, there exists no absolutes whatsoever. Rights: this is a system that qualifies more or less as the rule of the majority, for instance civil rights and laws are acceptable only because most of the people in a given society accept that certain behavior or state of things are acceptable.<\/p>\n
Personal Ethical System vis a vis:<\/p>\n
Egoism<\/p>\n
According to Sanders (1988), Egoism, also sometimes referred to as ethical egoism, is the normative position of ethics that all agents of moralism are supposed to do what is in their best interest. Though my system tends towards this direction, it proposes self interest only where it does not negatively affect any other person or relationships that have already been developed. This system is also completely different from psychological egoism which proposes that people can only act in ways that suit them best.<\/p>\n
Additionally, it is also very different with from rational egoism supposes that it is logical and rational to act in one\u2019s own interest, and even though these doctrines may be conjoined with ethical egoism, I do not necessarily subscribe to most of their fundamental principles.<\/p>\n
My system is more of ethical altruism given that it proposes that people have an ethical and moral obligation to help and serve others as best they can. It also compares to utilitarianism in that it holds that everyone should treat themselves with regard that is not higher than they would others. It should be noted however, that even when it holds this, it does not suggest that one should sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.<\/p>\n
Therefore my system shows that individual desires and well being are as equivalent as those of others. This therefore means that even when acting in the way one considers to be in his best interest or self interest, he or she should not harm the interest and well being of others when making any moral deliberations. Like ethical egoism, it also argues that in pursuing self-interest one ought to not necessarily jeopardize the interest of others. In other words, my system like ethical egoism \u201cendorses selfishness, but it does not endorse foolishness\u201d Rachels (2008).<\/p>\n
Virtue Ethics<\/p>\n
This is a more personal approach to ethics its fundamental basis is that the character of an individual, or what is normally referred to as the moral agent, is more important than the rules or repercussions that influence his or her ethical reasoning. Even though my system also borrows from consequentialism, which holds that the consequences of a persons commission or omission will determine his or her actions; it does resolve the moral dilemma that drives to the conclusion. Given that one may find a certain act wrong, there may be grounds where they could argue certain foreseeable circumstances where that act may be justified.<\/p>\n
Thus unlike a deontologist, I do believe that not all acts are always wrong and some \u201cwrong\u201d acts may have potential \u201cgoodness\u201d.<\/p>\n
In contrast therefore, a virtue ethicist would take into consideration as to the \u201cgoodness \u201d or \u201cbadness\u201d of an act but the decision as to whether or not commit that specific act. Virtue ethics holds that this reveals more character than performing or not performing the act itself<\/p>\n
The virtue ethics that were developed by Plato and Aristotle are by no means the all form of virtue ethics that are available. Over time, there have been several forms and collections of normative philosophies of ethics that have put great emphasis on the being of a person as to making the decision as to doing something rather than whether or not he or she does it.<\/p>\n
So like the system of virtue ethics, the system I have developed stems, or grows from identity and character rather than the actions themselves and\/or the repercussions of the actions made. Even in the current discourse as to what is morally praiseworthy, I too agree that morality comes from values that are from within; and all in all, virtue is effectually an end to be sought and it does a lot to protect relationships and authentic friendships.<\/p>\n
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development <\/p>\n
This is a theory that was originally developed by a Swiss psychologist and later expanded by Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg (1973) found out that any moral form of reasoning being the basis for ethical behavior has six stages which can be identified each adequately developing as a response to another moral dilemma. He does state that the process of development in morals is fundamentally concerned with being just, a process that is ultimately continued through an individual\u2019s lifetime.<\/p>\n
Similarly, my personal ethical system borrows from this in that it holds the fact plausible that individuals would tend to justify their actions were they placed in similar situations that cause them dilemma as to the decisions they would have to make or actions they would have to take. <\/p>\n
However, this Kohlberg\u2019s system is different in that it puts so much emphasis on justice even where other moral values are paramount, like care and where there is the possibility of intuitive decisions (Crain, 1985).<\/p>\n
Like Kohlberg’s scale, I believe that the system is concerned with how persons would give reasons to justify their actions or character and it is not a system of grading how \u201cmoral\u201d a person is.<\/p>\n
Key Values of My Ethical System<\/p>\n
Morals <\/p>\n
These are the fundamental actions that grow and are based on the underlying principles of ethics. The Webster dictionary defines it as \u201cof pertaining to, or concerned with the principle or rules or right or the distinction between right and wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n
In other words, it is what we would consider to be right or wrong. It is true that there is a certain universal and basic governing principle or guideline with which we all live by as a code of conduct, that even which nobody can explain its source, still abides by it. One may argue that morals are or may be relative or determine by the culture of the specific time and that there are still possibilities of discovering \u201cnew\u201d ethical grounds. Yet, it is ultimate that what is \u201cright\u201d is right and what is \u201cwrong\u201d will always be wrong.<\/p>\n
Character<\/p>\n
Ethical principles that usually build a certain set of moral actions are usually the basis from which character is grown. These, among other things, according to the Josephson Institute (2009) include trustworthiness, respect, fairness, responsibility, caring and patriotism.<\/p>\n
In order to grow and develop in all ways, there is a certain pattern of character that must be displayed. Even business and institutions in order to develop have to display a certain character; this is not just seeming to \u201cdo the right thing.\u201d<\/p>\n
It therefore helps that we do not develop a selective character or just seem to have when it best suits our aspirations \u2013 this would be no different from lacking a character at all. By having character I mean that particular individual who displays character, not once in a while, but on a daily basis.<\/p>\n
Values<\/p>\n
These are what make up an individual or institution. As humans, we require a variety of things to exist in this world. It is sad however, that nothing in this world is without cost. It is not just the price that one has to pay, but they must ensure that the do pay the right price in order that their needs may be satisfied. We thus value things according to our needs, and the basis of such things is relative to the system of value that we personally develop.<\/p>\n
For instance, there are primary necessities like water, food, air, clothing and shelter which are mandatory for survival. It is true that once the basics are satisfied, we will have other needs though not always in the same order. Each individual has his own ways of meeting these needs; this depend on the inborn or acquired traits that a person gets maybe through nurture and\/or nature. Major contributors include the family, society and the nation at large, which end up determining and deciding an individual\u2019s priority and lifestyle. They thus create and develop a person\u2019s personality and determine his growth.<\/p>\n
These values are individualistic, family based, national values, and professional, just to mention but a few.<\/p>\n
My Ethical System and Moral Choices<\/p>\n
Life is almost always about choice. The quality of our life and our character is normally determined by the choices we therefore make. Over time and practice, we develop a character that emanates from the type of choices we make.<\/p>\n
However, the problem with making choices is always what standards to use or the procedure to arrive at the judgment that the choice one is going to make is morally good or bad. It may be because there are times we lack very clear guidelines.<\/p>\n
Whenever, I have had to make a choice or decision, I always remember to bring in the whole artillery, I ensure that my moral choice encompasses my morals, taking into account my values and does not tarnish my character whatsoever.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
It is evident that from all the various disciplines of philosophy, ethics has somehow turned out and developed into the most plausible and practical branch. From all branches of philosophy, ethics is the most practical. Links can now be drawn from hitherto amorphous ideas and values when making several decisions. Morality too now provides basis for which situations that would otherwise be considered insurmountable can now be resolved with ease. However, ethical systems would have no worth were they to be severed from reality of the times or lack valid facts.<\/p>\n
My personal ethical system would therefore clearly fall in the category of a Logical System. Given the myriad of questions that life always throws at us, if find it easier to seek all the answers that can be possibly sought and therefore endeavour to create a morality that tries to answer all possible questions while at the same time aiming at a universal conclusion and resolution.<\/p>\n
I do believe that an all round moral or ethical system would provide the necessary guidelines that one would need in any situation he or she encounters in their private, professional or social life<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Crain, W. C. (1985). Theories of Development .2 Rev Ed.. Prentice-Hall<\/p>\n
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.<\/p>\n
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment. Journal of Philosophy. Vol 70 (18).<\/p>\n
Rachels, J. (2008). The Legacy of Socrates: Essays in Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.<\/p>\n
Sanders, S. M. (1988) Is Egoism Morally Defensible Philosophia?. Springer Netherlands. Vol 18, 2\u20133 .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction Times has developed several hundreds of various and different ethical discourse that have been proven to work very well<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n