Ethics. It's a funny concept really. Everyone has their own version of them. A pattern of beliefs and trained ideas on what is right or wrong. Usually, the majority of our ethics follows closely with the Law, mirroring the general outlooks and guidelines provided for a model 'moral' citizen. I view people who cling to 'the only RIGHT ethics' as ones who have no clear moral code of their own. These sad people have either been completely trained to think the way society wants them to think, or they live a life that exactly mirrors that of the original dead guy that wrote societies laws, and are free from making 'icky' life choices, except when events in their life are not presented as a clean-cut 'black and white' situation.
Most people follow the majority of societies ethics, and rarely stray, except in dire situations. A good chunk of people, however, choose to disobey societies ethics completely. Why they do so, well, there are countless reasons why. Some do it just for the sake and pleasure of being disobedient. More do so because societies ethics on certain things don't account for topics in the 'gray area' of the Law, and as such, remain even today as questionable and unanswerable, reasons being because people are scared to actually decide what is right or wrong, and also best for society.
Personal ethics are more important to the individual than societies ethics. However, both are hard to compromise. You can follow your own beliefs and anger society, or follow societies Law and break your own beliefs. Most people hate this dilemna, and follow their own ethics as close to the Law as possible.
Not me, I'm afraid.
One of my ethics and core beliefs is that there is no glory to Mankind. Mankind has, for the most apart, caused more harm and hurt than good. Through stupidity and blind reasoning, Man has followed a 'trial and error' method on how best to run society. Nobody has to work hard at questioning beliefs or ethics when they have nice and tidy 'black and white' rulebook. The sad thing though is, this rulebook can no longer keep up with the changing times. A woman stealing cheese from the supermarket recieved more jail time than a man who murdered another man (true story). Parents may no longer train their children to work with society and fear their consequences for poorly handled actions (I.E. discipline). Our roads and streets use rules that follow a courtesy system in a world where man has lost respect for each other. But nobody wants to change the rules, or find ways to replace them. Instead of using common sense or judgement to handle events not found in our rulebooks, people desperately scramble to find ways of identifying the problem with something that can be dealt with neat and simple.
Very soon, our world will simply collapse. The Laws will be unable to guide our people in a changing world, and allow expanding trends and ways of life to improve and grow.
What society needs to do is to teach people to open up their minds, and think about their own ethics. Do some of the old ways of thinking still apply in our modern world? Think of an example like murder. People keep doing it, even though it's wrong. So, ask yourself: is murder wrong? Is the killing of another sentient being a criminal act? Most people blatantly cling to our modern mindset and Laws, and scream defiantly that yes, killing is bad. Why do people do it then? Surely there is a need, and while it is being fulfilled, could have been handled better? I think that wanton murder is unnecessary and wasteful. However, sometimes people become an obstacle, and one should have a way to resolve issues that diplomacy cannot resolve. Why can't we bring back dueling, or life-and-death competitions/challenges to decide who is right or wrong in a confrontation? If both parties or more are unhappy, and no mutual agreement can be reached, why not allow them to 'duke it out' and have a winner emerge? Maybe if a man kills another, they can be made to pay taxes or a fine to the victims family, to discourage such wasteful behaviour. A governmental fine for wasting a valuable life would be a strong dissuadent to killing another. The option to do so would still be there, and after all, man should have the 'choice' to do so, without being held down by other men. Having freedoms, but strong consequences for having those freedoms, could be in place. Immediately saying that killing is wrong without considering why this option is needed can be detrimental. If killing is killing, and killing is wrong, what happens to those times when you need to kill to survive? Perhaps your wife or child is being beaten/raped/killed in front of your eyes, or your own life is in immediate danger. What then? Stand idle(calling the cops is idle) as the misdeed is committed, or break the Law and kill the aggressor yourself to save another? Either outcome is 'wrong', but which answer fits best with the ethics at hand? Most importantly, which ethics do you value most: societies Law or your own personal code? Saying that 'killing is wrong but necessary at the time so it's okay' is a form of contradiction. You needed to kill, had the power at your hands, and followed through with the actions. Even knowing it's wrong, you still chose the response to go against your own ethics, meaning that deep down inside, you accept and view killing as necessary and a better action than doing nothing at all. What now? You have just questioned your own ethics, in the gray zone. It's wrong in your mind, but still a better choice than the other options?... Instead of growing confused or frightened by the matter, people should learn how to identify their own personal ethic LIMITS, and figure out what really is important after all to them. Is stealing wrong, is murder wrong, is being in love with more than one person at a time wrong, is choosing to go against the grain of society wrong? You should be asking yourself when it's okay to go against societies ethics and use your own. You should view and compare your own ethics against societies blind Law and see how far apart the differences are. Most people will be frightened and amazed at how many differences and exceptions to the Law they are actually willing to make. Speeding down an empty highway at night, a little past the speed limit, with no one around. Downloading free music without crediting the hardworking artists behind it. Choosing to litter. Even though it may be wrong, you choose to compromise the situation and do it anyway. How good are your ethics?
My own ethics are very important to me, and although I tend not to upset society, I will often choose to break the 'black and white' boundaries of the Law to do, what in my mind as I see it, what is RIGHT. Maybe not always what I want to do, but always what is best for the situation and factors involved. I make my choices very seriously, and am a firm believer of common sense. I know some actions have dire consequences, but overall, I will always do what is best and as right as possible.
Next post will contain samples of some of my ethical choices and beliefs.