IMPORTANCE OF ETHICS: personal notion on ethics, coming from different

perspectives, they had a diverse idea of what ethics is.

fast-changing world offers us various alternatives as to
what would be the appropriate choice of actions for a One emotionally defined Ethics as that which has to
simple or complicated circumstance. do with what his feelings telling him is right or
wrong. A person following his feeling may end up doing
economic realities greatly influence the kind of action what is wrong. Feelings sometimes cloud our judgment
one has to consider before making decisions. to do what is right.

Another phenomenon that affects our actions today is Another respondent equated Ethics with his religious
the pluralistic worldviews: belief in two or more beliefs. If Ethics is placed only in the realm of religion
worldviews as being equally valid or acceptable. Thus, and every religion has its own standard of morality,
the individual or communal perspectives on certain then the concept of what right and wrong become
matters are considered along with on how the people relative to every religious group. Besides, again if
around the world see them. we confine ethics to religion, this would make the
unbelievers are exempted in our judgment of what is
global communication that makes the world we are right or wrong.
living in a village
One businessman claimed that Ethics is the same as
The complications of life in this new era sometimes following the Law. Many of us would subscribe to this
make people disagree on what is right and wrong, what claim. Both Ethics and Law are guides on how we act in
is to be done or not, or how things should decide. We a society.
cannot avoid ethical issues in our day-to-day routines.
We need to face them; make decisions and hopefully Finally, another respondent maintained that Ethics is
act rightly. doing the same as to what is being accepted by the
society. Many of what is accepted by a society are
Albert Camus once said that a man without ethics is a ethical. In fact, it is the greatest number of the
wild beast loosed upon this world. It is important to society that makes the judgment or decision one
study ethics since it seeks to discern what is the best makes in determining right and wrong. It was stressed
course of action in any given situation and not like be an in The Wrath of Khan (1982) when Spock says, “Logic
individual whose judgments for his actions is his clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh
satisfaction. the needs of the few.” Jeremy Bentham took it as
gospel by proclaiming that the greatest happiness of the
Meaning of Ethics and Morals greatest number is the foundation of morals and
Socrates - said that what we will be discussing is no legislation.
small matter, but how we ought to live. Ethics may not
be as important as the new discoveries of the The word "ethics" originates from the Greek word
contemporary world or may be considered to some ēthos, which means habit, custom, or character. It is
as a subject to discuss that belongs to antiquity, yet defined as the science of morals (from the Greek hē
value always shines in every decision and every act ēthikē tekhnē). It is a branch of philosophy that deals
executed. Plato even reminded us that it is no small with how should man ideally acts and relates to the
matter since involves how we ought to live our lives not society. As a philosophical discipline of study, the
only in relation to one’s self but most especially to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Ethics as a
others. science that involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. In
In an article appeared in Issues in Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall practice, ethics pursues to settle uncertainties of human
1987) it was said that when the sociologist Raymond morality by defining the nuances of what is good and
Baumhart asked some businessmen on what was their evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.
Ethics covers the following dilemmas (a) how to carry Approaches to Ethics
on with a decent life; (b) our rights and duties; (c)
the language of right and wrong; and (d) moral Philosophers these days tend to isolate ethical theories
choices - what is virtuous and evil? Our concepts of into three fields: metaethics, normative ethics, and
ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies, applied ethics.
and cultures. They infuse debates on topics like
abortion, human rights and professional conduct. Meta-ethics manages the idea of good and moral
judgment. It takes a gander at the starting points and
Morality, on the other hand, is ones’ own personal importance of moral standards.
sense of what is right or wrong. It is not imposed on
anyone, it is what you think a good and bad person is. Normative ethics is involved in the matter of good
Deigh (2010) defines morality in the sense used in judgments and the criteria for what is correct or off-
philosophical ethics as standards of right and wise base.
conduct whose authority in practical thought is
determined by reason rather than custom. Applied ethics takes a gander at questionable points
like war, every living creature's common-sense
In a capsule, Ethics refers to the standards, rules, norms entitlement, and the death penalty.
by external sources like the society, profession or
community where an individual resides. It is external by
nature since with it is ones social obligation to follow
the standards of a community and within cultural
norms. While morality, on the other hand, refers to the
principles or habits with respect to right or wrong
conduct. It is internal in nature for it involves the
individual belief of what is good or bad. It transcends
cultural norms.
 Uses of Ethics their own particular decisions and activities, instead of
falling back on helpful principles and traditions.
Ethics can offer a moral chart. Most moral issues get us
pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for Conflict Between Ethics and Morals
starters. Because these are such emotional issues we
often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains just One expert case of morals clashing with ethics is
go with the flow. But there's another way of tackling crafted by a guard lawyer. An attorney's ethics may
these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in disclose to her that murder is indefensible and that
- they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us killers ought to be penalized, however, her morals as an
to take a cooler view of moral problems. So, ethics expert legal advisor, expect her to protect her client to
provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can the best of her capacities, regardless of whether she
use to find our way through difficult issues. realizes that the client is blameworthy.

Morals can identify differences among individuals. Another illustration can be found in the medicinal field.
Utilizing the system of morals, two individuals who are In many parts of the world, a specialist may not
contending an ethical issue can regularly find that what euthanize a patient, even at the patient's demand,
they differ is only one specific piece of the issue and according to moral gauges for wellbeing experts.
that they comprehensively concede to everything else. Nonetheless, a similar specialist may actually have
That can remove a considerable measure of warmth confidence in a patient's entitlement to pass on,
from the contention, and in some cases even allude to a according to the specialist's own particular ethical
path for them to determine their concern. Yet, some of quality.
the time morals doesn't furnish individuals with the kind
of assistance that they truly need. Moral and Non-moral Standards

Ethics doesn’t give correct responses. Ethics doesn’t The things we considered morally right and wrong
generally demonstrate the correct response to moral based on the norms we believe could help us develop
issues. In fact, an ever- increasing number of our relationship in a society are parts of the standards
individuals feel that for some moral issues there isn't a of morality. These also include the values we integrate
solitary right answer - only an arrangement of rules that on the things we consider morally good and morally
can be connected to specific cases to give those bad. To always respect every human being is the norm
included some unmistakable decisions. A few thinker go of our moral standards. The reason why we respect
further and say that all morals can do is wipe out every human being, i.e. every human being has dignity,
disarray and elucidate the issues. From that point is the value we put in this act.
onward, it's up to every person to arrive at their own
decisions. Moral standard is not dependent on a group who may
have authority in a certain community. The Senate
Ethics can give a few answers. Numerous individuals cannot change the notion that respecting our parents is
need there to be a solitary right response to moral a noble act that children are expected to give to them.
inquiries. They discover moral uncertainty difficult to There must be reasonable reason/s to rationalize why
live with in light of the fact that they truly need to do such an act is not morally good.
the 'right' thing, and regardless of whether they can't
work out what that correct thing is, they like Moral obligation is another way to know if our act is
'someplace' there is one right answer. Be that as it may, within the moral standards. People are not legally
regularly there isn't one right answer - there might be a required to give to charities, but they may feel a
few right answers or simply some most exceedingly bad personal obligation to do so because they believe it is
answers - and the individual must pick between them. the right thing to do. Given that one has the capacity to
For others, moral vagueness is troublesome on the help, he still has the moral obligation to extend his
grounds that it constrains them to assume liability for hands to the needy even if that person belongs to the
camp of your rivals.
In appraising moral standards, it is not reliant on the choice. The second is that alternatives are equally
interest of a few. It has to be judged in the interest of admissible. They have their own valid reasons why the
everyone. It has to be applied universally. To kill a agent should embrace them. Spending money for
person, therefore, cannot be accepted to the standards the ailing parent is just acting and likewise also
of morality since generally, it causes pain to the spending it with the education of his children. The
recipient of the action and accordingly does not benefit situation demands a decision from the agent which
it though it may satisfy the desires of a few. more justifiable act to be made. And the third is that
the decision is made will have consequences on the
Lastly, there are particular feelings that we stakeholders whether favorable or not. It is like you
experienced after we have done something good or have your mother on your one hand and your lover on
bad. After doing charitable works we feel good about the other hand. You have to let go one to save the
ourselves. But when cheat during an examination or in a other. Whatever decision you make, it has
relationship, we feel guilty about it. This special feeling consequences not only you but also to both recipients
of guilty is associated with the standards of morality. of the action to be executed.
There is something inside of us telling us that what we
have done is shameless. Types of Moral Dilemmas

EPISTEMIC MORAL DILEMMAS: involve situations

DILLEMA wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with
each other and that the moral agent hardly knows
which of the conflicting moral requirements takes
There are certain occasions that we are trapped in a precedence over the other. In other words, the moral
situation in which there is a choice to be made agent here does not know which option is morally right
between two or more options, we are trap between or wrong.
two choices that are equally good and equally evil. It is
not about our preference since we have to sacrifice one ONTOLOGICAL MORAL DILEMMAS: involve situations
over the other. We are in a perplexing situation wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with
where the choices we have are between equally each other, yet neither of these conflicting moral
unsatisfactory alternatives. In this case, we are in a requirements overrides each other. This is not to say
dilemma. that the moral agent does not know which moral
requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that
Ethicists have called circumstances like these ethical neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the
difficulties or we called moral dilemmas. other; hence, the moral agent can hardly choose
between the conflicting moral requirements.
The Platonic case strikes numerous as too simple to
be described as a certified good situation. A SELF-IMPOSED MORAL DILEMMA: is caused by the
moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, David is
Sometimes called ethical paradoxes, these dilemmas running for the position of the town mayor. During the
invoke an attempt to refute an ethical system or moral campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples
code, or to improve it so as to resolve the paradox. in his community to protect their virgin forest just to
gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks financial
Conditions of a Dilemma support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David
won the elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of
Before a situation can be called a dilemma, specifically fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at
ethical dilemma, there are three conditions to be the same time allows the mining corporation to destroy
satisfied. The first one is when the agent, the decision- their forest.
maker and the doer of the action, has to make the best
decision. In making decisions, there are significant value
conflicts among different interests. The value of family
may be in conflict with the value of religion in making a
A WORLD-IMPOSED MORAL DILEMMA: certain events solutions, instead, they confront enduring dilemmas like
in the world place the agent in a situation of moral tradeoffs without easy answers.
conflict.
OBLIGATION DILEMMAS: are situations in which more Morality Defined
than one feasible action is obligatory, while prohibition
dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are Moral Philosophy is an attempt to achieve a systematic
forbidden. understanding of the nature of morality and what it
requires of us, “how we ought to live and why”.

SINGLE AGENT DILEMMA: the agent “ought, all things The Role of Reason
considered, to do A, ought, all things considered, to do
B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the Kant’s system of ethics endeavors to get the moral law
moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally from reason. Unethical behavior, as indicated by Kant,
the same moral options but she cannot choose both. includes inconsistency, and is in this way irrational.

MULTI-PERSON DILEMMA: on the other hand, “...the This component of Kantian morals has two vital
situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a inferences.
second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent
can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for The first implication of Kant's utilization of reason to
P1 to do A and P2 to do B.” The multi-person dilemma ground morality is that it gives a reaction to the self-
occurs in situations that involve several persons like a seeker. Vanity holds that we should just to keep our
family, an organization, or a community who is best interests in mind. Most thinkers dismiss
expected to come up with consensual decision on a selfishness, however, it is famously hard to give a
moral issue at hand. The multi-person dilemma requires sufficient defense for doing as such. Kant's theory gives
more than choosing what is right, it also entails that the such a legitimization: pride is unreasonable, thus can be
persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a panned on that ground.
manner, the moral obligation to do what is right
becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the The second implication of Kant's utilization of reason to
integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral ground morality is that it clarifies the extent of
grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also morality. Rationality, for Kant, is conclusive of human
prevent the organization from breaking apart”. nature; it is common among individuals. Every single
person, at that point, since it has the ability to be
rational, should be moral. Other creatures, without this
Levels of Dilemma rational aptitude, are not subject to the moral law, and
subsequently can't be weighed by it.
PERSONAL LEVEL is when one, on the subjective level, is
confronted with choices that are equally good and bad. Reason is a capacity that is utilized by man in managing
The agent choice does not affect any organization but issues.
only between individuals.
Moral Reasoning, therefore, is a process by which one
An ORGANIZATIONAL DILEMMA exists within an thinks about the moral dilemma in ways that:
organization or a particular sector. It refers to a
problem of reconciling inconsistencies between  identify (as comprehensively as possible) the morally
individual needs and aspirations on the one hand, and relevant aspects of the situation;
the collective purpose of the organization on the other.  weigh the significance of the morally relevant
aspects, giving due importance to the views of the
SYSTEMATIC/STRUCTURAL DILEMMA refers to the persons’ concerned of what
ongoing search for a satisfactory system. Managers constitutes benefit and harm;
rarely face well-defined problems with clear-cut  identify (as comprehensively as possible) all the
possible actions that could be pursued and their most
likely consequences;
and
 consider all of the above elements and come to a
decision about which action is
 reasoned to be the most ethically justified.

On Impartiality

Each individual’s interests are equally important.

Therefore, each must acknowledge that other person’s
welfare is equally important as our own. Impartiality
entails a proscription against arbitrariness in dealing
with people.

A conscientious moral agent is someone who is

concerned impartially with the interest of everyone
affected by what he or she does. Being impartial is to
carefully sift facts and examines their implications.
The agent also accepts principles of conduct only
after scrutinizing them to make sure they are sound;
and he/she is willing to listen to reason even when it
means that prior convictions may have been revised,
and who finally, is willing to act on the results of this
deliberation.”

In simply putting the statements above, the nature of

morality implies two main points:
 that moral judgment must be backed up by good
reasons;
 morality requires the impartial consideration of each
individual’s interest.