Having read Reader 5, I understand that there are three
types of ethics. Organizational (how we do things), Professional (sometimes
know as the ‘code of conduct’) and Personal. I feel that personal ethics
present themselves as the most challenging as it is often very difficult to
ignore what one believes in so passionately. For example, I would find it
impossible to kill an animal, even if it were for someone else’s benefit.
What I do find interesting is how some people who believe
themselves to have strong ethics, can find themselves being manipulated in
certain environments. Reader 5 mentions the Jade Goody/Shilpa Shetty argument on
Big Brother back in 2007. Although the people involved protested that they were
not racists, it seems they became a product of their environment. Although they
were brought up to know right from wrong, this case suggests that our ethics
can be easily changed.
Therefore, there doesn’t seem to be a right and wrong when
it comes to personal ethics. It is a very grey area and different people have
different perceptions. I was particularly drawn to a line from Plato’s play ‘Theatetus’
“whatever
in any city is regarded as just and admirable is just and admirable in that city
for as long as it is thought to be so”.
This line highlights that really there is no such thing as
right and wrong – it is merely what one perceives it to be. 400 years ago it
was perfectly acceptable to burn people who did not believe in the same
religion as the monarch. These days this seems unimaginable! Though as human
beings, there are actions that go beyond ethics or morals and are taken for
granted. These include murder, rape and adultery. Most people agree that these
examples are things that no human should do to another, whatever the situation.
However, there are grey areas when the choice of whether something can be
considered right or wrong/ good or bad is left to the individual and some
cases, the jury.
Examples of these include: assisted suicide – is it always
wrong to help someone end their life if they are living every day in misery and
pain?
Theft – is it always wrong to steal if you are starving and have
no other means to survive? (possibly applies to other poverty striken countries
rather than the UK) Treason – If people
had not fought against the crown in history, we may not be living in a
democracy today.
Hobbes, 1651 saw ethics as a necessity in society to prevent
everyone doing as they pleased and subsequently leading to an intolerable
community. This is still relevant in today’s society and the majority of people
adhere to the law, which in the UK, is here to prevent people from harm in some
way or another. Nowadays, ethics do not lie as deep as the law. What some
people may consider unethical, others may not and without the law to back them
up, people find themselves in a position of having to legally tolerate what
they believe to be unethical.
For example, I think it is unethical to keep thousands of
chickens in a dark room together without being able to spread their wings and
having their beaks cut off to prevent them from pecking each other due to
living in inhabitable environment.
I was interested in the concept of consequetialism –
conducting something unethical for the greater good. Would it be right to
torture a terrorist to extract vital information that could save hundreds of
lives? I believe so.
I could not, however relate to the second case study of
Reader 5. Whilst I can objectively understand the role of the photographer is
to observe, the role of a human being is to participate in life and have
compassion for others. My ethical stance on this is that it was a terrible,
inhumane decision not to help the little girl. Surely there must come a point
where you ignore your professional obligations and act on your instinct?
In my profession, I have found myself in situations where my
personal and professional ethics have collided. As we live in a diverse
country, we can sometimes find ourselves in situations where conflicting ethics
and morals come together and do not unite. For example, homosexuality is
legally accepted in the UK, but as we know, this does not necessarily mean that
every British citizen finds it ethical. At my place of work, I came across
someone from the Islamic faith who would not accept homosexuality. To her, her
religion and close knit society had brought her up to believe that
homosexuality is unethical, regardless of what the law states. She made some
very homophobic remarks and this most certainly caused ethical tensions. I was
horrified at some of the comments she made regarding homosexuality and she was
horrified at some of the remarks that I made regarding her beliefs. People’s
views on ethics can lead to not only conflict and tension, but also violence
and war. What I learnt from this experience is the importance of professional ethics.
These are here to protect the individual in their work place. Of course the law
still exists within the work place, but certain ‘codes of conduct’ are
essential to the worker and working environment. The outcome of my example was
that I was informally disciplined for undermining her faith, and she was
disciplined for actually breaking the law due to vocalising homophobic
comments.
Reader 5 states that ‘the importance of carrying out
functions in a good way was in the Greek’s view, central to contributing to a
civil society. This rings true regarding ethics in the work place, as it
promotes and implements a civilised working environment. The Reader also notes
that some professions now have certain licences in order to function and uphold
standards. In schools, the staff can also become members of a union which will
act upon any unethical situation that may be imposed upon the staff. This is a similar
concept to being a member of ‘equity’ within the entertainment industry.
In conclusion, it is very difficult to determine what is
right and wrong due to the individual’s perception and we need laws and codes
of conduct to oversee conflicting views.
