Paradox, Contradictions, and Orangutans
Regardless of their levels of education, ethnic background,
and geographical location, people seem to know much about ethics.
The abuse of the word ethics and justice in multimedia nowadays
is reaching the level where they just sound meaningless at
times. Yet we are supposed to feel it when someone pleas on
ethics and stay with the person as if we are in it with him/her
when a person seeks justice. Why? Because that's the
stereotypical American way that we have been bombarded with by
the media.
My ideas might come as a shock to some people. Before
moving on to my debate, I want to let you, the reader, know that
this is not meant to persuade you to think the same way that I
do. I actually do not want you to think like me. Meaning I'm
not saying that I am absolutely right. But I'm simply informing
you of what might be a new idea to you. So try to read it with
an open mind.
Well, in my humble opinion, there is no such a thing as
ethics or at least the measure that people reference to
determine the righteousness of people or the act of. Hence, no
one should practice it to push around another's belief. Odd?
Perhaps. I'll explain why.
Often times when people say ethics, they refer to universal
ethics that is true over time and place(aka. Kantian Ethics,
based on Immanuel Kant's ideas). At it's purest sense, actions
are determined good or bad without any further considerations
given to the motivation, consequence, or to the situation. Such
as killing people or stealing is always bad, and helping others
is always considered virtuous.
Let's consider some obvious cases where killing could be
considered virtuous by many people. Killing a psychopath in
defending your precious loved ones, traveling back in time and
punishing the infamous German warlord to prevent him from
causing the massacre of the Jewish people, or how about sinking
an enemy submarine with a few tens of crew members in it while
it was trying to launch a nuclear ICBM to Washington D.C.,.
Those people killed in process are justified by the number and
the dearness of the people saved as the consequence. So, now
the many of you are thinking that we do need to consider the
motivation, consequence, and the situation. Yet you don't want
to give up the idea that some things under certain circumstances
are just unethical or ethical without a doubt. I say, "Fine!"
Let's stretch the Kantian ethics to consider and examine the
situation before making the final decision.
Eating human flesh! Do you think this is an unacceptable
course of action regardless? In some African tribe, the tribe
members share and eat the flesh of a deceased hero believing
that the hero's strength and courage will be handed down to
them. Yes! It does sound barbaric or inhumane in some ways.
But, hey! In their culture, it might be considered to be a part
of a highly sacred ritual. It's just another cultural diversity
right?
I think it is about a good time for me to introduce the
idea of how ethics started.
Once upon the time, people were confused without ethics or
the law. Everyone made his or her own claims based on their
opinions and enforced it as much as they could. Some of these
were accepted and some were not. Some of the more popular ideas
spread further than the ones that were not. Of course, many of
these were modified in process of this propagation either by the
originator or the spreader depending on their views and the
change of the views at later time frames. An agreement or a
promise is set in the region were these ideas were spread and
accepted. (This is an exaggerated, yet simple form of what I
believe to be the start of the ethics.) Therefore, all these
matters of ethics some people believe so strongly are not based
on some facts but people's consents or mere gathered opinions
which are defined whichever way we want them to be.
For those of you who are perplexed at my definition of
opinion, I want to be a little more specific about defining it.
There are three types of statements a man can express. These are
opinions, knowledge, and facts(or truth).
- A fact or truth is a concept that is already existent even
before we discover them. There is no need for a hypothesis
because people discover it as it is. Unlike knowledge, it is
always right and people do not argue over it.
e.g1) An apple fell from a tree.
e.g2) Clinton admitted that he had an affair with Luinski.
- Knowledge is a concept that has been invented and supported
by majority of the people exposed to the subject. Knowledge is
an hypothesized concept, and is subjected to amendments when
proven otherwise.
e.g1) Earth attracted an apple causing it to fall from the
tree.
e.g2) An oral sex is not an intercourse.
- An opinion is purely subjective and it varies from a person
to another.
e.g) I was having a fantastic day until an apple falling from
a tree landed on my face, and now I'm pissed.
e.g) I think Clinton has disgusted the entire nation and he
should burn in hell.
People could really argue over it since just about anything
is debatable, but at least in my humble opinion, ethics is based
on gathered opinions. The motivation for it could be anything
from success within a given society, how you want to be treated,
and how you don't want to be treated, etc.
Consequently, when people argue over ethics there
should be no right or wrong answer since it comes from their
subjective opinions. And, the ethics itself comes from a
gathered form of opinions. Moreover, the ethics varies from a
society to another.
For all the above reasons, I take the righteousness and
wrongfulness as mere indications of how you are looking at the
situation and from what angle.
Ethics was designed to be whatever you believe or want it
to be and it comes directly from your opinion. Hence, there is
no such a thing as ethics or at least not the absolute way most
people believe it to be.
For the same argument, it is simply absurd to say, "You
were wrong that you did this, and I am telling you the truth." Or
to say, "I just want the justice," because there's no such a
thing as an ethical truth or absolute justice. It would be more
accurate to say that I demand a proper decision made on my
case by the current law of United States. In my humble opinion,
yet again, to be at the courthouse and to mention about justice
would be a plain insult on the audience's intelligence. Why?
Simply because our courthouse is a place to resolve disputes or
to prosecute cases by the law not by the ethics.
Every society has determined its own ethics, and derived
social play roles from it. Most of us are mere Orangutans that
mimic how the others play the role for the entire life while
making minor changes, if any, in what our ancestors believed.
The irony is that many of us don't even realize it. ?#060;b>So Be It. |
