✍️✍️✍️ Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong?
1 - 2: Right Versus Wrong- Ethics and Performance
It wasn't the first time a politician lied and it won't be the last. Sometimes a lie, a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, seems the perfect response: a brother lies about his sister's where-abouts to the drunken husband threatening to harm her, a doctor tells a depressed patient that he has a chance of long-term recovery when she is confident he'll live only six months, a son gives his late mother's estate to the poor after promising to honor her demand that the money be placed in her coffin. When trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation, perfect honesty may seem second best next to values like compassion, respect, and justice.
Yet many philosophical and religious traditions have long claimed that rarely, if ever, is a lie permissible. What, then, is the truth about lying? The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that all persons are born with an "intrinsic worth" that he called human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely rational agents, capable of freely making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason. To be human, said Kant, is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical, he continued, is to respect that power in oneself and others.
Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy. Kant believed that to value ourselves and others as ends instead of means, we have perfect duties i. A second perspective, virtue ethics, also maintains that lying is morally wrong, though less strictly than Kant. Rather than judge right or wrong behavior on the basis of reason and what people should or should not do, virtue ethicists focus on the development of character or what people should be.
Virtues are desirable qualities of persons that predispose them to act in a certain manner. Fairness, for example, is a virtue we may choose to strive toward in pursuit of fulfilling our human potential. In virtue ethics, to be virtuous is to be ethical. Though the nature of virtue ethics makes it difficult to assess the morality of individual acts, those who advocate this theory generally consider lying wrong because it opposes the virtue of honesty.
There is some debate whether a lie told in pursuit of another virtue e. This apparent conflict between virtues is managed by most ethicists through a concept called the unity of the virtues. This doctrine states that the virtuous person, the ideal person we continuously strive to be, cannot achieve one virtue without achieving them all. Therefore, when facing a seeming conflict between virtues, such as a compassionate lie, virtue ethics charges us to imagine what some ideal individual would do and act accordingly, thus making the ideal person's virtues one's own.
In essence, virtue ethics finds lying immoral when it is a step away, not toward, the process of becoming the best persons we can be. According to a third perspective, utilitarian ethics, Kant and virtue ethicists ignore the only test necessary for judging the morality of a lie - balancing the benefits and harms of its consequences. Utilitarians base their reasoning on the claim that actions, including lying, are morally acceptable when the resulting consequences maximize benefit or minimize harm. A lie, therefore, is not always immoral; in fact, when lying is necessary to maximize benefit or minimize harm, it may be immoral not to lie.
The challenge in applying utilitarian ethics to everyday decision making, however, is significant: one must correctly estimate the overall consequences of one's actions before making a decision. The following example illustrates what utilitarian decision makers must consider when lying is an option. Recall the son and his dying mother described earlier. On careful reflection, the son reasons that honoring his mother's request to settle the estate and deposit the money in her coffin cannot be the right thing to do. The money would be wasted or possibly stolen and the poor would be denied an opportunity to benefit.
Knowing that his mother would ask someone else to settle her affairs if he declared his true intentions, the son lies by falsely promising to honor her request. Utilitarianism, in this example, supports the son's decision on the determination that the greater good is served i. Altruistic or noble lies, which specifically intend to benefit someone else, can also be considered morally acceptable by utilitarians. Picture the doctor telling her depressed patient that there is a 50 percent probability that he will recover, when in truth all tests confirm the man has only six months to live. The doctor knows from years of experience that, if she told this type of patient the truth, he would probably fall deeper into depression or possibly commit suicide. Right and Wrong are cultural universals.
One of the characteristics of a cultural universal is that everybody on the planet agrees that there are concepts of "right" and "wrong," but they disagree on what is right and what is wrong. Accordingly, there is no one answer to your question, other than to point out that your assertions, "The only reason things are considered wrong is because they harm someone or something right? There are plenty of ethical systems where they are false. Unfortunately, as Jobermark pointed out, this is really the fundamental question behind the entire philosophical discipline known as "ethics. My recommendation would be to engage in your own study of ethics, on your own time.
My personal approach would be to start from the Wikipedia article on the topic, Ethics , and work from there, but you can use any study method which suits your style. Let's remember that the meaning of right and wrong will change from place to place and even over time within the same places. It is the way that the right and the wrong are percieved. The perception of those is passed through generations, that at some point had a line drawn between the two. For example, hurting someone is wrong, but many would agree that if that someone was hurting another person, then it would be right to hurt that someone to save that another person. People can also define something as wrong if it goes against their believes.
In another aspect, something can also be wrong if it is not the ideal solution to a problem. For example, lets pretend that the answer to a math problem is a whole number with an infinite number of decimals; in this case, including just a few decimals would be an accepted answer. However, it would not be an accepted answer if only the whole number was included.
Although the whole number is part of the answer, it would not be the expected answer. One can also think to be right in his or her own self, but be wrong to the rest of the world. People can either not do wrong because they are afraid to be judged, or because they agree with what is defined as wrong. Nations many times will not agree on each other and define right and wrong differently; but yet, they have the power to judge within their own limits. The final answer to what is right and what is wrong can only be given by that who has the power to judge over the situation.
Whether something ir right or wrong depends on the ethical conception of a certain person or institution. Now the reason why a person or institution would consider something is wrong may vary: Could be beacuse it harms someone it's wrong to stab people , could be because it harms something valuable it's wrong to burn the Mona Lisa , could be because it go against the laws, or tradition, or religion Ethics has traditionally been divided in virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics along with other more minor distinctions , but as far as your question is concerned, if I understand you correctly, the two branches are essentially the same.
I don't know of any Ethical school which contains a definition of right and wrong, but does not define "wrong" by the fact that some harm may come to others. Here I'm using ethics to mean the making of moral decisions so pure hedonism would be tautologous, not ethical. Your question " Virtue ethicists would argue that it is not the consequence of your actions that matters, but the virtue they derive from. These virtues, however, are not random, they are those things which, if followed generally support the well-being of society i. The same is true of moral rules, the idea is that eventually more harm than good would come from the action that is being outlawed. The problem is not really one of fundamental disagreement about whether harm is a good measure of an unethical action, but on how best to predict that harm given such a complex set of variables.
Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Why is something considered wrong? Ask Question. Asked 4 years, 11 months ago.One form of ethical realism Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? that Occupational Therapy properties exist independently of human beings, and that ethical statements give knowledge about the objective world. It is Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? important Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? note that a society can evolve Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? Negative Effects Of Snow Days as regress over time, Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? way for a revised set of moral standards that are more compatible with sociological views at that time. Morality, on Is Tims Ethics Wrong Or Wrong? other hand, is internal.