In the age of social media where we are exposed to all corners of the globe through our screens, how do we each develop such different personal ethics? Philosophers have theorised about ethics for thousands of years: from the Greeks believing in the Golden Virtue which lies between two extremes; to religion following a more absolutist approach setting out clear guidance as to what ‘Thou shall do’ or not, to a more modern approach where democracy has created laws to which citizens should abide by.
Ethics is an area which has always intrigued me, I always wondered how everyone believed in such different things. Why each religion had a differing set of core values. Why in some countries the death sentence is legal? Why in some countries it was illegal to be gay? Why in some countries women had so little rights? Why in some country’s racism was so apparent? Initially when learning about different ethical theories in more detail, I found that I was leaning to a Relativist approach. Ethical relativism states that morality is relative to everyone’s culture. This means that whether an action is deemed as right or wrong is entirely dependent on the culture in which it exists in. However, I can’t ignore the impact which my environment has had on me forming my own personal set of morals. I believe that being raised on the internet as part of Gen Z has exposed me to a lot. A short scroll on Twitter’s trending page or Instagram’s explore page can flash up all sorts of content. In the past month alone, I’ve read about the Taliban taking control of Kabul, to people filling up plastic bags with petrol in the UK. This exposure has also led me to believe that somethings are morally incorrect, perhaps suggesting that I also follow a Deontological approach, where things can be defined as right or wrong on a moral basis.
However, this still doesn’t answer my question as to why it seems that each country, group, or society on earth believes in different values. This question led me to the non-Cognitive approach, where ethics are a matter of personal preference. As humans we aren’t robots, each person is unique with different strands of DNA forming who they are. However, letting everyone live their lives according to their own personal set of morals would be immensely chaotic. Within the individuality each human possesses, some are wired to be driven to do awful things. The Teleological approach suggests that ethics provide guidance but decisions take into consideration situation and circumstance. One way to explain this is by thinking of war. In everyday life murder is deemed as wrong but in war it is necessary.
On a personal level I think that I have a more Relativist approach meaning that I believe there is no universal moral rule. However, this being said I do also think I relate in someway to the Teleological approach as situation shouldn't be dismissed. How do you think your personal ethical views were determined? Do you agree with any of the ethical theories I’ve discussed in today’s blog? Let me know what you think in the comments!