Common Ethics

Though they are sometimes appealed to without much thought, ethics are deep-seated and integral to the human experience. Those who follow a code of ethics are often following a school of thought devised by another; for example, ethics for professionals reveal they are often bound to a universal and strict code of that guides their workplace habits. But individual ethics are formed by individuals, and to me the development of personal ethics is important not for the well-being of the self but for that of others.

In his work Morals and Ethics, Kenneth Keninston defines morals as “socially learned, largely unconscious behavior” that is “relatively specific” (628). But ethics refer to a more general sense of defined discipline, to “the individual’s thought-out, reflexive and generalized sense of good and evil, the desirable and the undesirable, as integrated into his sense of himself and his view of the world” (Keninston 628). For example, a lawyer following a professional code of legal ethics is prohibited from discussing privileged information with others no matter how distasteful the client. Doing so would be considered “evil” or “undesirable” while providing that client fair and accurate representation would be considered “good” and “desirable” (Keninston 628). As a student, an act of plagiarism would be considered a violation of the academic code of ethics. But while external influences are certain to help shape it, an individual’s code of ethics cannot be cemented by others.

Individual ethics are arbitrary by any sort of definition. To me the value of understanding ethics lies not in the ability to help one’s self lead a better life, but rather in helping others do so, for helping others is something I’ve judged to be good and desirable. To me ethics begin with values, attributes one considers to be good, and these values guide my thoughts and actions. Loyalty, determination and understanding are three such values I hold which are undoubtedly shared by many others. These values in particular are important to me because they are well suited to the aiding of others. Conversely, attributes like treachery, cowardice and bigotry are considered evil because they often lead to harm for others.

But no individual code of ethics is formed with the determination of values alone. When, why and to whom to apply these values also comes into play in developing one’s code of ethics. It seems to me this is where the line between ethics and values may become fuzzy; moral codes tend to be “specific and situational” while ethical principles are “general and universal, seeking to provide guidelines for conduct in all possible situations” (Keninston 628). When one violates their code of ethics, according to Keninston, it results not in a guilty conscience but “a kind of existential shame that he has not been who he thought himself to be” (628). But by “general and universal” it seems Keninston does not mean that ethical values are applied to all people in all situations, but rather such values are always applied to whom or to what one’s code has resolved them to apply them to. For example, I made the claim earlier than my code of ethics is focused upon helping others, so I must identify these others to whom my ethical values should be applied and why they should be applied. I would apply the value of loyalty to my family, perpetually, for all the time and effort they invest in me. Even if violating this principle would not bring any particular harm to my family, violating this sense of loyalty would inflict a sense of shame upon me because I deem myself loyal to them and I deem them worth my loyalty.

It would seem too arrogant to make the claim that if others would adopt my way of thinking the world would become a better place, though I’m certain many happen to have similar ethics already. Part of the reason I’m so hesitant to make this claim is that ethics can change, and one can never truly know their limits; though ethics are supposed to be applied universally and in all circumstances, circumstances can change ethics. Book II of Plato’s Republic presents a thought experiment which seems to question the inherent nature of humanity, whether it is human nature or law that prevents people from acting unjustly. The book claims that if given the opportunity to supersede punishment then “the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point . . . For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice . . .” (Plato). It’s hard to say whether my ethics would change if my circumstances changed, whether I would remain loyal to my family if they stopped being loyal to me, because I cannot truly fathom the pillars of my way of thinking, and I believe that the foundation that supports one’s thoughts is just as important as the thoughts themselves.

I think being human means having to change constantly with every experience, large and small. As our minds change, so may our ethics: even if our rules remain the same, we may not believe in them quite as firmly as we once did, and sometimes we may fall from the cliff before we ever realize we were at the edge.

Works Cited

Keniston, Kenneth. "Morals and Ethics." The American Scholar, vol. 34, no. 4, 1965, pp. 628-32.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Benjamin Lowett. The Internet Classics Archive. Web Atomics and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html