Any person in the United States is entitled to doing what he or she pleases to do, although there may be negative consequences in doing so. When a person willingly places what he or she desires to do below what should rightly be done, he or she would be able to live a morally exemplary life and/or ethically exemplary life. The two lives may or may not correspond with each other because a distinction exists between ethics and morals. Both may determine the difference between right and wrong behavior, but ethics refer to the standards imposed by the individual's group (nation, profession, etc.) while morals are imposed by the individual (Source X). Ethically, a scientist testing an experimental drug on human test subject would randomly choose who receives what treatment. Morally, the scientist would choose the more critically ill subjects to receive what he perceives is the best treatment. Therefore, living a morally exemplary life means followings one's own conscience; living an ethically exemplary life means following the code of conduct for the individual's group, be it all of humanity or all those in a given profession.
The difference between ethics and morals, between unethical conduct and immoral behavior, is significant with regards to the actions of elected officials. Elected officials should be obliged to live with ethical conduct but necessary moral behavior. Obligating elected officials to live ethically exemplary lives with regards to their profession is appropriate because the officials are elected into their government positions by the nation's or region's citizens. Those denizens expect their officials to abide by the region's own ethics, by “well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ough...
... middle of paper ...
...ively impact the credibility of the official's political side. Laws, after all, are founded and enforced by the government onto all citizens. Therefore, private actions that ignore the law can penetrate the wall between the private life and professional life of any government official.
Although the potential duality within the life of a government official is grounds for the tolerance of most immoral actions, a code of conduct for elected government officials should still be executed. The dual lives only justify there being no obligation for elected officials to live a morally exemplary life in private; it does not justify the allowance of unethical lives with regards to the elected government offices. As long as the code of conduct revolves around the ethics of the professional life and excludes most immoral actions of the private life, the code should be upheld.
Lewis, C. W., & Gilman, S. C. (2005). THE ETHICS CHALLENGE IN PUBLIC SERVICE A Problem-Solving Guide (2nd ed.).
Sharp, B., Aguirre, G., & Kickham, K. (Eds.) (2011). Managing in the Public Sector: A Casebook in Ethics and Leadership. Boston: Longman.
Ethics tend to be jealous. That is, when one places something before the choice to be ethical, ethical behavior itself is lost completely. One cannot choose to act in a non-ethical manner for an ethical end. Ethics speak instead directly to the actions of individuals. One is either ethical, or one is not. No middle road exists.
There has been a huge debate throughout generations of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition environmental factors such as culture, parenting, and socialization. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are very different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more about being right or wrong but being ethical is more about understanding the consequences of an action and interpreting the situation.
The word “Ethics” has its root in the Greek word ‘ethos’, which means character, spirit and attitude of a group of people or culture. Ethics is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as: a system of moral principles, by which human actions may be judged good or bad or right or wrong, and the rules of conduct recognized in respect of a particular class of human actions.
Leaders are constantly making decisions that are based on their values and directly affect their constituents. Some of those decisions are insignificant, and only affect people in the short term. Some are bigger and determine the long-term fate of society; and others go even further as to determine who those leaders are as people and how they will leave society for future generations (Joseph, 2001). Socrates raised the question, “What is a virtuous man, and what is a virtuous society?” In observing the leadership that will ultimately decide the future for our society, I believe we must ponder the same question. If ethics is the basis of politics, as many people believe to be true, the two should be tied more closely together. Ethical concepts should have specific implications in politics. There are numerous political scandals seen in American history that exemplify the corruption of the government and emphasize the dire need for ethics in such leadership. Political leaders need to be an example for the rest of the country; therefore they should be held to a higher ethical standard than a regular citizen. Not only should they be held to a higher standard in the eyes of the common people, but the government should legally hold them to a higher standard as well. Punishment should be more severe for political leaders if they do anything unethical that directly affects the wellbeing of the people they rule over.
This paper will discuss the value of having a code of ethics in the place of the leader 's profession and business establishment as well as in the home. The writer will write a ministerial code of ethic with the use of social media.
Known as a period of political scandal, many politicians engaged in bribes, lies, and abuse of power to further a political, social, and often personal agenda. The typical corrupt leader "will sell his vote for a dollar [...] turns with indifference from the voice of honesty and reason [...] his unalienable right may be valuable to him for the bribe he gets out of it" (166). Such politicians are an injustice to society because as they are elected by the people, they must act towards the betterment of the people, rather than for themselves. Furthermore, those who elect this politician to office merely underestimate their political and social responsibility because they "want the feeling that their own interests are connected with those of the community, and in the weakness or absence of moral and political duty" (167). Thus, under the control of the ruthless politician and the reckless voter, the true essence of democracy is
You can see the lack of morals in people with power a lot nowadays. It seems that as if someone gains power, they tend to get greedy and take whatever they want. They use people and give no credit where credit is due. Some of these people need to take a long look at themselves and see where their ethics are at.
One can define being ethically moral by understanding the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It is what shapes an individual’s behavior, their beliefs, and the rules that they follow through. However, not everyone shares the same view of morality. In modern times, ethics is constantly tested, in situations such as robotics, 3D- printing, and in particular surveillance (NSA). Many people argue that surveillance is needed especially so that if anything were to happen, people would be able to be prepared and to deal with the situation accordingly. However, several other people believe it is against our human rights and that we have the right to privacy, which is what Edward Snowden, a previous CIA technical assistant, strongly
As Dworkin introduces his idea of political integrity, he begins by introducing his conception of three political ideals: fairness, justice, and procedural due process. According to his claims, a utopian society would only need these ideals to thrive because officials consistently doing what was perfectly just and fair would guarantee coherence. In our system of ordinary politics, Dworkin feels that integrity need be accepted as a fourth political ideal, if we accept it at all. In his definition of political integrity, Dworkin claims that it ought to be used to treat like cases alike, provide equality under the law, be parallel to personal integrity, and demand that the state act on a single set of consistent principles. In layman’s terms, the characterization of political integrity implies total equality under the law by all laws being justified by the same principles. Still though, he finds it important to make the assertion that it may well be the case that some “breaches” of integrity are, all things considered, better than the alternatives. Dworkin claims that we have two separate principles regarding political integrity. These principles, legislative and adjudication, try to make laws morally coherent, and allow them to be seen in such a manner. Also, when speaking of political integrity, he makes two important background assumptions. These background assumptions are that we all, as a society, believe in political fairness and that we know that different people hold different view about moral issues that they all treat as of great importance. From these assumptions and principles, Dworkin presents an interesting view of political compromise in the form of checkerboard laws.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
The contrast between ethics and morals can be subjective; however, there are variations. Ethics signify a social system in which morals are applied; whereas, morals define personal character. While a person’s moral code is generally constant, the person’s ethics can be subject to change. Furthermore, ethics can change according to individual and group associations or affiliations. A moral compass is innate and can be honed through direction by parental and other authority figures during the formative years; moreover, this influence could be positive or negative. In regard to ethics, you are who you hang with; in other words, a person’s associations and affiliations can define them for good or bad. A stellar reputation can be destroyed overnight
In my opinion, ethics give people free will to make right choices. People have free will to make choices that are governed with responsibility, accountability, and liability. We have a responsibility to perform in an ethical manner and be accountable for our choices or actions. Regardless of the circumstances and choices we make, there are consequences if we make the wrong choice. The question of whether an action or choice is ethical or not is fundamentally based on whether something is right or wrong. From an ethical standpoint, unethical choices and risky behavior can lead to increased liabilities. The liabilities result in the loss or damage sustained by a company or other party as result of an unethical and sometimes illegal decision. Although we exercise free will on a continuous basis, we are governed by the decisions we make and my belief is that the decisions we make daily do not just affect us. These decisions affect other people, such as family, friends, coworkers, instructors, neighbors, etc. The most prominent example of ethics can be recognized in the field of technology based on the growing amount of rapidly changing legislation and acts that under consideration in order to protect people from unethical practices.
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Nietzsche all had their own ideas for which one could reach happiness in his/her life. All have similarities in there reasoning except Nietzshe, who contradicts the others entirely.