Right, wrong, and okay
“In situations with ethical dilemmas, there are often many options that are ethically acceptable, with no specific one ethically required. Thus, it is misleading to divide all acts into two categories, ethically right and ethically wrong. Rather, it is better to think of acts as either ethically obligatory, ethically prohibited, or ethically acceptable.” (Pg. 34).
Right, wrong, and Okay can be divided into three separate categories depending on the situation. Being right is being absolutely certain that what you are doing is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is being truthful to yourself and other people. Wrong is never ok nor is it acceptable in my opinion. Okay is neither right nor wrong but it is acceptable at times.
Distinguishing wrong and harm
“Carelessly and needlessly causing harm is wrong, but it is important to remember that harm alone is not a sufficient criterion to determine that an act is unethical. Many ethical, even admirable, acts can make other people worse off” (pg. 36).
Causing harm to people is wrong but not in every situation I would say. Causing harm to individuals who are innocent and unable to protect themselves is always wrong. In a situation where a person committed a crime causing harm to someone else or his or her family then in this case I think harm is justified for the person who committed the crime.
Separating goals from constraints
“Economist Milton Friedman wrote that the goal or responsibility of a business is to make a profit for its shareholders. This statement appalled some ethicists, as they believe it justifies, or is used to justify, irresponsible and unethical actions. It seems to me that arguments on this point miss the distinction between goals, on the one hand, and constraints on actions taken to achieve the goals, on the other—or the distinction between ends and means. Our personal goals might include financial success and finding an attractive mate. Working hard, investing wisely, and being an interesting and decent person can achieve these goals. Stealing and lying might achieve them too. By most ethical theories, stealing and lying are unacceptable. Ethics tells us what actions are acceptable or unacceptable in our attempts to achieve the goals. There is nothing unethical about a business having the goal of maximizing profits. The ethical character of the company depends on whether the actions taken to achieve the goal are consistent with ethical constraints.” (pg. 36.)
As a company having the goal to maximize their profits isn’t in any way uncommon or ethically wrong. That is the whole point in being in business, to make a living. Achieving goals consistently with ethical constraints gives the company ethical character.
Personal preference and ethics
“Most of us have strong feelings about a lot of issues. It might be difficult to draw a line between what we consider ethically right or wrong and what we personally approve or disapprove of.” (pg. 36).
Law and ethics
“Some laws enforce ethical rules (e.g., against murder and theft). By definition, we are ethically obligated to obey such laws—not because they are laws, but because the laws implement the obligations and prohibitions of ethical rules.” (pg. 37).
Laws and ethics sometimes go hand in hand. Laws are supposed to be obeyed because it is ethically right to do so.
References
Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment