I am of the opinion that ethics can be in conflict with morality. Where they may seem to be the same thing I believe they are not. Ethics is the behavior expected from us in society, morals are a personal choice. Morality is linked to faith and religion, ethics may or may not have such a connection. This has never been more evident than in the latest ruling by the Supreme court. Ethical conduct requires us to obey the laws of society. For some, this latest ruling is in stark contrast to their moral code. This is the reason for the separation of church and state. But although the fundamental principal is a good one, in practice, it is not viable. A government should not legislate ethical behavior in opposition to the moral majority. To be precise, the supreme court does not have that power but that action is vested in the people. At least in our Republic it is supposed to work that way. At any rate, the supreme court ruling does not change my moral code just makes a certain practice ethical in our society. The discomfort I feel, the threat, is that I may be forced to alter my morality. How ? By being forced to act in an ethical fashion ? My moral code require ethical behavior. I must obey the law. Included in this ethical behavior is the speaking out against immoral behaviors as well !
This has already presented itself by the punishment of those not wishing to participate in the new ethics program. It is my contention my religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution and that religious freedom is defined within my moral code. During the Vietnam war, when I enlisted in the Navy, there were those that called themselves " Conscientious Objectors " to war and were excused from service. Their " moral code " forbid their participation. Our government certainly recognized that " moral code " as taking precedence over the "ethical requirement" to serve. Law deals with ethics, the heart deals with morality. Why then this new ethical standard has no " exemptions " for conscientious objectors ? Why then are those that object being punished and labeled as bigots ?
The supreme court has ruled on a matter of ethics, that is all. It changes nothing in my personal life or moral code. My pursuit of virtue is unchanged. There has always been unethical and immoral behaviors in any society. Ethics are codified. Morality is defined by the society. Morality is closely tied to the religious practices of that society. There are as many definitions of moral behavior as there are religions. Ethics certainly influence the moral decisions of a society, there is no dispute about that. Man certainly has a propensity to rationalize his desires. In that way we can feel comfortable, even noble ! It is the ultimate deception. I, for one, am not being deceived. That doesn't mean I hate anyone or condemn anyone for their choices. What it does mean is I believe certain practices to be immoral ones and oppose them, the practice, not the person. I will not be deceived by any " law " trying to redefine my moral code. Just because others do it, it doesn't make it right. Legality certainly makes it a lot easier to be wrong though, I can't argue with that.
This has already presented itself by the punishment of those not wishing to participate in the new ethics program. It is my contention my religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution and that religious freedom is defined within my moral code. During the Vietnam war, when I enlisted in the Navy, there were those that called themselves " Conscientious Objectors " to war and were excused from service. Their " moral code " forbid their participation. Our government certainly recognized that " moral code " as taking precedence over the "ethical requirement" to serve. Law deals with ethics, the heart deals with morality. Why then this new ethical standard has no " exemptions " for conscientious objectors ? Why then are those that object being punished and labeled as bigots ?
The supreme court has ruled on a matter of ethics, that is all. It changes nothing in my personal life or moral code. My pursuit of virtue is unchanged. There has always been unethical and immoral behaviors in any society. Ethics are codified. Morality is defined by the society. Morality is closely tied to the religious practices of that society. There are as many definitions of moral behavior as there are religions. Ethics certainly influence the moral decisions of a society, there is no dispute about that. Man certainly has a propensity to rationalize his desires. In that way we can feel comfortable, even noble ! It is the ultimate deception. I, for one, am not being deceived. That doesn't mean I hate anyone or condemn anyone for their choices. What it does mean is I believe certain practices to be immoral ones and oppose them, the practice, not the person. I will not be deceived by any " law " trying to redefine my moral code. Just because others do it, it doesn't make it right. Legality certainly makes it a lot easier to be wrong though, I can't argue with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment