My personal code of ethics regarding society takes some cues from classic philosophers such as Socrates, because his mode of the participation of the individual in society seems to make a lot of rational sense to me. Therefore, my personal view of ethics regarding society would basically be Socratic ethics, in which I value people in society who look for the truth, rather than those in society who try to fool people with myths and obscure the truth with propaganda. Socrates was basically the founder of Western ethics, and was also a venerable Greek philosopher. In a general sense, philosophy in the Socratic tradition as questioning and looking for the truth is still very active in contemporary society, across many occupational and lifestyle boundaries, as shown by such common tactics as the scientific method, which is derived basically from the principles of ancient Greece.
My ethics are informed by the Socratic relationship between the individual and society, which can be seen in many contemporary examples in society of today that support Socrates’ findings including political, social and religious figures of today. In my personal estimation, good intentions and moral principles are just as important today as they were in ancient Greece, and issues such as the rule of law in deciding issues of right and wrong, the dangers of tyranny, and the individual’s obligation to fulfill an agreement with the society in which they live (if the society is seen to be just) remain important contemporary issues. In a more specific sense, the most important aspects of philosophy can be seen today in the continuing advance of justice and the quest for greater Civil Rights.
I don’t just look to Socrates for my ethical outlook regarding society, however: my own character based on experience is involved in several traits based on entities that I believe are important to me ethically. I come from a strong family background and I believe in the power of family and the love and togetherness that this has given me, to give back to society. I also have had many mentors and leaders from this society who I have looked up to as role models from my family, as well as my church, which have helped to form my character. When I take this character to the realm of my personal ethics, I find that I agree that, “We cannot, pace Milton Friedman, leave the governance to the forces of the market… it cannot guarantee that performance will be ethically and socially sensitive” (Newton and Ford, 2002, p. 30). Personally my values are that ethics does involve personal characteristics among individuals who make an agreement to work together and communicate in society, if it is not seen to include a sort of all-encompassing morality, as morality could be said to differ more from person to person (and culture to culture) than ethics.
My view of ethics also relates to society in terms of how I view the political and social leadership of this society. To me, there are many differences between the official leader, the emergent leader, the authoritarian leader, and the democratic leader, theoretically and ethically, in terms of their own individual ethical styles which they bring to the society as a leader. But in reality, especially in the former two categories, there may be more similarities. But in terms of difference, these styles or positions of leadership can be differentiated by contrasting the ethics based methodologies used to
achieve them. For example, the societal and ethical style of the official leader is different from the emergent leader in that there is more likelihood that the official leader will represent traditional organizational forces and the status quo in their management of society’s issues. The emergent leader, on the other hand, may represent a challenge to this sense of tradition and status quo, and thus may present old issues in a new way or seek to change the basic environment of society through their own ethical management. It is also likely that the emergent leader is going to have less of a solid bureaucratic support-structure than the official leader, and may not have the traditional, conservative authority within society that an official leader has.
Looking at my current horizon of understanding, I would have to say that I am universal or general in regards to my beliefs in relation with the beliefs of others in society. This would affect my contrast with the society outside of myself, since I am not a fundamentalist or an exclusivist who thinks that my own belief is the only answer and therefore other beliefs are right or wrong in relation to it. I also don’t think that one individual’s beliefs can’t be compared with other beliefs. I do not see my ethical belief system as being fueled by a need to convince people that my point of view is the only right one. I do accept that other systems of belief or ways of thinking can lead to an ultimate goal, but I accept this without adding the condition that my belief system is still somehow more true and relevant than these other systems. Even though I am more of an inclusivist in terms of mutual respect for other beliefs out there, I do not use this position as a point to gain access to them and then argue that my belief system is similar and better. For example, I have a friend who practices Buddhism, and in my belief, his way of believing is just as valid as mine.
Ethics is not the same as morality or presupposing and demanding moral conduct, as some would have it, because this seems to be more about limiting autonomy; morality is more of an externalized and often religious response, whereas ethics could perhaps be more readily likened to the basic conscience mechanism of social responsibility, which could be considered autonomous perhaps easier than morality. Ethics is something that begins with the individual and acts effectively to represent society in terms of various issues of contrasting freedom and restraint. But it becomes clear when looking at the ethical issues that the working environment of various cases of social and political issues that we must also function in this societal space as a greater microcosm than the individual, but a lesser one than the society in which we are all living. Therefore, the rules and codes of the society must be reflected in terms of providing fair and balanced representations.
Regarding other individuals
My ethical code towards other individuals is similar to, and in many ways is defined by, my ethical code towards society. First of all, it is also influenced by the philosophy of Socrates. Socrates was less interested in finding out how things worked than he was in finding out why things worked. He contributed many new ideas to philosophy, especially regarding the relationship between the individual and the society in which s/he lives, which naturally revolves around how one relates to other individuals in this society. “Greeks coined the term Philosophy (“love of wisdom”) to describe a wide range of intellectual pursuits. His interests included mathematics, music, and the study of proportion. Herodotus is often named the “Father of History” ( history, in Greek, means “investigations”). Herodotus wrote the first Western historical chronicle”(Greek, 2008). Socrates saw the moral hesitation that gripped him when he was about to commit an action as divine, and this is something that I can reflect on in my relationships with other people when I have to communicate or empathize with them. The pattern of choice must start with the individual; there cannot be a group ethic that is in agreement without individual ethics. The individual must make choices regarding how to behave. This behavior can be broken down into two categories: the choice as it effects the society around the person making the decision, and the decision as it effects the self of the individual making the choice. In other words, a person can make a decision that benefits them personally; however, it might not benefit the rest of society, because it represents them cutting corners to get ahead, or seeking credentials in a way that is fraudulent, and will make them ultimately feel bad, leading to them decreasing the happiness of other individuals.
My code of ethics regarding other individuals is also strongly influenced by the late Martin Luther King, Jr. This involves what I see as the need for individuals to work together to actively change a system that may not be fair to them. Concentrating on the immorality of acquiescence, King states that, “To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good” (King, p. 165). King sees the people who cooperate with the oppressor as having given up, and this creates the sense that it is not worth questioning one’s situation. He sees that too many people who have been cut down by oppression see themselves as being empowered by stating that they are used to being down, or that being down doesn’t matter to them. This attitude is immoral to King because he views it as a way of siding with rather than against the oppressor, who is immoral and is advocating the same point of view. Taken to its rational conclusion, this attitude of acquiescence will, according to King, only reinforce the arrogance and power of the oppressor, when s/he sees the results of their oppression in terms of acquiescence and finds their preconceptions reinforced by behavior.
My code of ethics involving individual is also influenced by my perception of leadership of individuals over society, which also was mentioned above in terms of my ethical code towards society. As an individual in society ruling, the authoritarian leader’s role is patterned around a rigid structure of ethics (which is more basically positional than leadership), hierarchy, and bureaucracy that is relatively static and derives its authority from the leader him/herself. This system has a vertical power structure in which the leader has ultimate authority and decision-making capabilities. The democratic leader’s role is also vertically integrated, but there is much more room for ideas and policies to move up and down the chain of command. Rather than garnering power from personal directives of the leader, this democratic leadership system is about reaching moderate consensus and establishing a sense of shared or common authority based on majority decision, rather than personal decision.
When a ruler or leader plays the role of the figurehead, the connotation is that their leadership is representative of the society as an individual, and their personal actions are collated with the actions of the society to represent symbiosis. That is, the shared vision between the society based structure and the individual based structure in this role is very close, and the social implications of organizational representation are among the foremost in the leader’s actions. The leader will thus act as the visible social symbol of the society. There is a strong emphasis on tradition and inspirational leadership in this role.
Any individual who is making an honest and knowledgeable decision must think of how the behavior will effect other individuals in terms of positive and negative repercussions, and they must also think how the decision will effect themselves in terms of conscience. This is a potential problem because although many people have highly-evolved consciences, there are possibly an equal number of people who are more goal- than conscience-oriented in their behavioral choices. An individual could make an ethical choice to behave either in a friendly or an unfriendly fashion. They could choose whether or not to tell the truth. They can make an ethical distinction between giving and taking. They could be goal-oriented and money-motivated enough to excuse behavior such as cheating, thus setting themselves up for the guilty feeling of thinking that they are an incompetent fraud, or they could regard experiences as being more important than goals. Knowledge and truth can be a personal decision that can also be reflected by an external group or group philosophy, although some would argue against absolutism in ethics.
Regarding myself
My personal character could be said to embrace a sort of universal morality that includes the personal characteristics of self-discipline and fortitude. I am tempted to add selflessness to the list, also, but I don’t want to seem that I am bragging about myself. I believe that even within the institutional structure of the society and community in which I live, human behavior is still human behavior, and ideas of right and wrong still apply. There are many who would propose that the basic step towards embracing ethical behavior in business is letting one’s conscience be his/her guide. I believe that this statement fits in with my character. To me, this is also applicable in the relationship of the community to the individual: the universality of the concept adds to this dimension. A community should be socially responsible, but it is more debatable whether it should be required to be so. I feel that my character is most comfortable when I am in a place where I can feel free to talk about my religion and how it impacts my character and code of ethics, as well. I strongly identify myself as a Christian in terms of my values and beliefs.
Regarding my personal ethics, I believe that challenges can most effectively be turned into opportunities through a studied understanding of teamwork and inter-cultural communication, and I believe that these virtues will help me inestimably in my career, when I am to go out into the world and meet the challenge of the future in my own way.
While I certainly intend to be creative in my personal and ethical decision-making, I also perceive myself to be a component within a culture of fellow professionals (microcosm) and society (macrocosm). Success in both of these spheres is, I believe, built on knowing how to communicate effectively and work as a team as effectively. The professionals within my field of choice, just as in the community and society at large, especially must know that they are communicating with human beings who have real needs in terms of culture and diversity, and learn to share these needs in terms of empathy and consideration. This should be the starting point for creativity- a combination of empathetic pragmatism and team leadership that motivates everyone involved, bettering the whole of society.
I also take some of my keys of personal ethics from the philosopher Bergson, who was a disciple of Kant. Bergson believed in a mix of time and space that also reflected ideas of interior and exterior, internal and external, and time and space (consciousness and the world). “In order to define consciousness and therefore freedom, Bergson proposes to differentiate between time and space, “to un-mix” them, we might say. On the other hand, through the differentiation, he defines the immediate data of consciousness as being temporal, in other words, as the duration (la durée). In the duration, there is no juxtaposition of events; therefore there is no mechanistic causality” (Henri, 2008). In terms of ideas of time Bergson was not a strong supporter of a political entity that was informed by a cosmopolitan society in which the universals posited in Kant’s more rational theories could take full form. He was basically advocating a sort of temporal system that was based on shared ideals of universal ethics and morality which sprang from an essentially natural function in humanity. Bergson works on a large scale with ideas concerning time. He categorizes explorations of human time keeping in spatial and temporal forms, and examinations of these tenets of human nature are abstracted. Bergson works philosophically with the palette of explaining time ideas, taking in other ideas of time and multiplicity. He took the social contract in a different way, although he was still basically informed by many underlying principles that were supported by temporal ideals, which is something I can agree with and take into my personal philosophy.
Bergson saw that many levels of the self had to work together to deal with and relate to the world. He saw that the world was external and therefore also conditioned some of these levels of the self, but also that there were levels of the self that were more internal. This reflects on the internal/external juxtaposition in the philosophy that has already been mentioned above. “There is a heterogeneity of feelings here, and yet no one would be able to juxtapose them or say that one negates the other. There is no negation in the duration… In any case, the feelings are continuous with one another; they interpenetrate one another, and there is even an opposition between inferior needs and superior needs” (Studies, 2008). In terms of ideas of the self, Bergson challenged Kant, who wanted people to be equal and sovereign in their relationships to one another. Therefore, Bergson would see a hypothetical situation from a relativist perspective that would judge the situation more in terms of added and subtracted notions of order, but less in terms of each group having rights that may be countered by the actual position of an authority as someone who has taken over the rights of those individuals on the plane in a way that is from this perspective differentiated. This is something that I find personally amenable in terms of what I could call an internal code of ethics. But more simply, perhaps the best indicator of my internal code of ethics is my conscience. If I do something wrong, I feel like I automatically know it afterwards.
REFERENCE
King, Martin Luther, Jr. (2008). The Ways of Meeting Oppression.
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Ways%20to%20respond.htm
Newton, Lisa H., and Maureen M. Ford (2002). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on
Controversial Issues in Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greek influence on Western culture (2008).
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Western:culture.htm
Studies in comparative philosophy (2008).
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_alex.html
