Ethics in Everyday Lives

Applied Ethics

Viewing real-life situations and applying ethical knowledge to them. Applied ethics attempts to answer how people should act in specific situations.

For example, a single mom of 3 is struggling to make ends meet, and the food bank she usually makes her weekly trip to is low on supply. She considers her options; let her children, along with herself go hungry OR; steal some necessity items from the grocery store.

"Thou shalt not steal" describes this situation perfectly. The woman is considering stealing so that she and her children can survive. Is it unethical to steal, even in a dire situation such as this? Should she let herself and kids go hungry just to satisfy this belief written a thousand years ago?

Say a woman gets sexualled assaulted/raped by a close family friend, and as a tragic result, gets impregnated with his child. She wishes to get rid of any reminder of this trauma inflicted upon her, and wants to have an abortion. Is this act in question "ethical"? Is this murder? Or saving her own life from a life of misery?

The "Thou shalt not kill" testament from the bible is often used by religious folk to justify why abortion is unjust and murderous. They believe, no matter the awful and barbaric circumstances, that abortion is killing a human child, and have zero regard or care for the person receiving the procedure. This situation escalates even further if they had consensual sex, and still had an unwanted pregnancy, since now the blame for having unprotected sex can be inflicted upon them. However, I believe that consent, along with a person's right to choose is the only ethical way about this stance.

Summary

Metaethics

Definition: Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy which explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Metaethics focuses on what morality is in itself.

You catch somebody at a store shoplifting something. You consider keeping it to yourself and minding your business, since you never really know what's going on in somebody's personal life. It might be the best course of action to ignore and forget. OR - you could tell the cashier about this stealer. What is the "right" or "wrong" course of action to take in this case? Furthermore, what exactly is a right and wrong thing to do/say? What makes something morally wrong or morally right?

Debwewin – Truth: You have to look at yourself before you judge another’s way of walking. In this situation, this teaching is prevalent, since we can't exactly judge what somebody else is doing. They could be in a desperate situation that left them no other choice but to steal. And to put yourself in the same situation, if it was absolutely necessary, you would most likely do the same thing. So, would it be wrong or right to speak up/mind your business?

Is murder wrong, or right under certain circumstances? What constitutes as being a "just" murder? A subgenre of metaethics, moral nihilism, argues that nothing has intrinsic moral value. For instance, a moral nihilist might contend that killing someone is inherently neither ethically acceptable nor unacceptable, regardless of the motive. Moral relativism, which does not give moral statements any fixed truth-values but does permit moral claims to be fundamentally true or untrue in a non-universal sense, differs from moral nihilism. Moral nihilists are ethical sceptics to the extent that only true statements are known. I personally do not agree with this philosophy. Say a woman gets attacked on the street, and she pulls out an emergency weapon (pocket knife) and stabs him in an act of self defence. Is the act that she performed justifiable since she was only defending herself? Yes, since she could have been attacked or even killed if she hadn't acted in self defence.

Do not murder (Seven laws of Noah) ; Thou shalt not kill (Ten commandments); These teachings are used to say that murder, in any act of the matter, is intrinsically wrong. They, however do not take into consideration factors that have no other choice but murder. Should a woman risk her own life and virtue just to satisfy a thousand year old teaching from religious beliefs? If she is in serious danger, and there is no other choice, what else is she ought to do? Metaethics questions the nature of whether this morally ambiguous situation is just or unjust.

Normative Ethics

Normative Ethics is centered around the making of concepts that provide general moral rules governing our behavior, such as Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics. It deals with how people ought to behave, based on moral principles or values.

A doctor has a terminally ill patient that requests for a lethal dose of medication to end their life, since their quality of life has diminished and they are in severe lasting pain.
The doctor has to decide whether or not to honor the patient's request. From a normative ethics perspective, the doctor considers principles such as respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice to make their decision.
Respect for autonomy supports the patient's right to choose, while beneficence supports the notion that the doctor thinks in the patient's best interests. Justice would demand that the doctor treat the patient justly and equally, and non-maleficence would require the doctor to refrain from harming the patient. The decision the doctor makes is a reflection of their own ethical beliefs along with the specific context of the case.

"Thou shalt not kill". Is it wrong to kill, but justifiable under certain circumstances? This situation proves that we all have set moral values and principles that govern our beliefs of what we consider to be right or wrong.

A bachelorette party are out at a restaurant, getting drunk and enjoying themselves. One of the girls is tipsy and accidentally spills a glass of wine on a stranger's dress. The other girl gets upset and demands that the friend pay for the cleaning or replacement of this dress. The girls discuss together what the right course of action is in this situation. In normative ethics, the most morally acceptable path of conduct would be determined by taking into account various ethical theories or principles. For instance, utilitarianism might suggest that the girl who ruined the dress pay for the cleaning or replacement to stand as an apology and to maintain overall happiness for all involved. The obligation of the friend to take accountability for their actions and set things right, regardless of the repercussions, may be emphasised by deontological ethics. Virtue ethics would propose the friend to act in accordance with the virtues of honesty and responsibility, and take accountability of the situation. The group would ultimately have to consider theseethical frameworks, choose which one most closely expresses their beliefs,and then act in accordance with that decision.

Samma-Sankappa — Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Acting from a place of love and compassion. In this situation, the girl admitting to her wrong doings would be the best course of action to take. She would be acting apologetic and compassionate to the stranger and taking blame where necessary.

Samma-Ajiva — Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action - the ethical principle of non-exploitation. The basis of an ideal society. In this case, the girl would be taking full accountability of her actions and thus doing the right thing; apologizing and offering to repair the damage is the best way to deal with this type of situation.