Prepared SCU: Find information on

!
immunization requirements and get
the latest campus updates on COVID-19.

MENU Search #

!"#$%&'%($"&)'*
Home › Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
› Ethics Resources › Ethical Decision Making
› What is Ethics?

         

!"#$%&'(%&")*$%+,'-&"./%'0#1/%,
2345")'63"#7),'6898,'"#1'!.:3"%&'98
!%;%/

Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right

and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits
to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart

asked business people, "What does ethics mean
to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is

right or wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our
society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."

These replies might be typical of our own. The

meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the
views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people

tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being
ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's
feelings. A person following his or her feelings may
recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings
frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most

religions, of course, advocate high ethical
standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion,
then ethics would apply only to religious people.
But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the
atheist as to that of the devout religious person.
Religion can set high ethical standards and can
provide intense motivations for ethical behavior.
Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion
nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the

law. The law often incorporates ethical standards
to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like
feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own
pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid
laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely
obvious examples of laws that deviate from what
is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing

"whatever society accepts." In any society, most
people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical.
But standards of behavior in society can deviate
from what is ethical. An entire society can become
ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example
of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever

society accepts," then to find out what is ethical,
one would have to find out what society accepts.
To decide what I should think about abortion, for
example, I would have to take a survey of
American society and then conform my beliefs to
whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to
decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further,
the lack of social consensus on many issues
makes it impossible to equate ethics with
whatever society accepts. Some people accept
abortion but many others do not. If being ethical
were doing whatever society accepts, one would
have to find an agreement on issues which does
not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First,

ethics refers to well-founded standards of right
and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits
to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for
example, refers to those standards that impose
the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape,
stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud.
Ethical standards also include those that enjoin
virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And,
ethical standards include standards relating to
rights, such as the right to life, the right to
freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such
standards are adequate standards of ethics
because they are supported by consistent and
well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and

development of one's ethical standards. As
mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms
can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary
to constantly examine one's standards to ensure
that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics
also means, then, the continuous effort of
studying our own moral beliefs and our moral
conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the
institutions we help to shape, live up to standards
that are reasonable and solidly-based.

This article appeared originally in Issues in

Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987). Revised in 2010.

9"#'<,'=><>

ALSO ON MARKKULA CENTER FOR APPLIED

ETHICS

2 years ago • 1 comment 2 years ago • 5 comme

The Moral The

Question of Consequence
School … of Unethical …

Comments Community ! "

1 Login

' Favorite 79 Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH

OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name
The Moral The
Question of Consequence
John Winfred Bosso − ⚑ …
School …
3 years ago of Unethical
being a student of Social Ethcs, I find this article
very instructive.
6△ ▽ Reply
Ved − ⚑
2 years ago edited

Ethics is imposed.
Morality is personal.
You all make this way too complicated.

One is a personal opinion on values. The other is a

set of impositions to force people into supporting
values and standards, even if they do not
personally agree with them. Hence, why there are
ethical codes for clergymen, police, doctors,
lawyers, etcetera.

Basically what happens when a man personally

feels he does not have to serve cake to a gay
couple. That's his moral belief. Ethics says he
must, whether he likes it or not. I've also met plenty
of people who think all cops are bad cops by virtue
of being an inherent institutional evil. They'll also
probably obey the law 99% of the time.

You might then argue that there is no way to

objectively determine right or wrong. That's not a
real problem. That's just the human condition.
People disagree on what must be valued. This is
normal and natural. Else all politics would already
be a solved game.
7△ ▽ 2 Reply
Kamani Alicia Goodwill > Ved − ⚑
3 months ago

wow! , this was well put together

△ ▽ Reply
munchie3 > Ved − ⚑
a year ago

Ved, what are the ethical codes for doctors; do

no harm. you are glomming all different people
who LIVE to HELP people.
not sure what your solution is
△ ▽ 2 Reply
Mikul Walker − ⚑
3 years ago

Ethics is the moral fiber that you carry and

represent on a consistent day to day basis.
2△ ▽ Reply
Max Galarza − ⚑
3 years ago

Put it in simple words, Ethics is the study of what is

morally right and what is not
2△ ▽ Reply
munchie3 > Max Galarza − ⚑
a year ago

way more difficult than that

△ ▽ Reply

Wandile Chamane − ⚑
a year ago edited

When you cannot teach right and wrong. Ethics

become the foundation of reason.
1△ ▽ Reply
munchie3 > Wandile Chamane − ⚑
a year ago

is it really that simple?

△ ▽ Reply

Andi Marquez − ⚑
2 years ago

This was well thought out, I enjoyed reading it,

thank you.
1△ ▽ Reply
Fliza − ⚑
9 months ago

Thank you
△ ▽ Reply
Nathalie Castaneda − ⚑
a year ago

Should you go into a degree if you are being forced

into it.
△ ▽ Reply
Artemus Quarrels − ⚑
a year ago

As a philosopher, I'll point out that the authors get

many things right, but are ultimately very confused.
△ ▽ Reply
munchie3 > Artemus Quarrels − ⚑
a year ago

How so? Not being mean. I would enjoy your

thought process
△ ▽ Reply

Elbert Isbell − ⚑
a year ago

Ethics, philosophy, and psychology, oh my!

Let us begin by declaring that ethics relate to other
learned things such as politics, psychology,
sociology, philosophy, skilled trades, bakers,
Doctors, lawyers, and the church (religion). They all
have principles and precepts that are spoken very
clearly in each perspective as code or, standards of
how things are supposed to be done. Ethics are
found in each of these learned things. Ethics is
more than the do's and don'ts. In fact, before
licensing any of these and a whole lot more of job
standards. One must show competency in
operating in these guide lines. Some have penalties
that one could lose their licensing if they break
these codes or laws.
Ethics according to, Ethics IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987).
Revised in 2010. Ethics is based on well-founded
standards of right and wrong that prescribe what
humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights,
obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific
virtues.

Pastor EI, EI OH, Ethics are connected to

philosophy as accepted among the disciplines of,
Psychology, Sociology, political science, the
church, in fact ethics shows up everywhere we
walk or crawl in this world. If your an electrician
you have ethics and codes on how things are to be
done. Along with every job out there, there are
standards and ethical principles that are required to
for the job to be done correctly. Most disciplines
require testing before certification is given and
most of the certifications are about ethics; how
things are supposed to be done.

The Bible declares what ethics should be, and

where they come from, and how mankind should
live period. John 1:1“In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.”
Philosophy seeks meaning of all things.
Philosophers ask why for all things. We must
understand that any information that philosophers
have are extrapolated from the Bible given by God
himself. Since God was in the beginning before
earth was spoken into existence. When he came
and created, he came with his word and he was
the word. Adam and Eve never had to go to school
they were formed with a full lexicon on all
knowledge that God had given them to
communicate, work, and function in the Garden.
Along with that knowledge which is ethical was
how things are supposed to be done.

So, every great philosopher took what was given in

the Bible and taught by the church. They used this
and extrapolated their philosophies. When you
read some of these philosophies by great thinkers,
we can clearly see some of them were incorrect by
long shots and unusable for a sound ethical
standard to live by. Like John Locke philosophy of,
"Tabula- rasa." If a person is born with a blank
slate and nothing innate them how can a new born
suck a bottle fresh out of the womb? Freud would
be jailed and labeled a pervert today and the only
thing he gave was cognitive, which has blossomed
into a den of iniquity today. Neither of these
thinkers added anything to ethics or took away
from it. I always said this, if you believe a certain
way about anything and you find in the Bible word
that contradicts your, opine or philosophy. Your
problem is not the word of God. There is not one
single contradiction in it. Your problem is in
understanding, this understanding from God
reveals and declares truth and ethics. This wisdom
from understanding and knowledge will always
lead to truth; objective, personified, ethical, and
righteousness, Which, is from and belongs to God.

Psychology is loud about declaring descriptive

behavior and can only tell us what the average
person should or would do. I personally think
Psychologist should be barred from testifying at
any court proceedings that involve human beings. I
can get that advice from any bartender or
homeless person. They add nothing to ethics
period. They have no authority to speak of what
human behavior should be. Look at the DSM
psychology is constantly changing it to fit their
agendas. Any conclusion a psychologist reaches
about human ethics it will always be relativistic in
its approach and its findings. When they do this
they operate out of their respective disciplines and
by doing this they reject all norms.

Hypothetical example. Mom's 12-year-old

daughter comes home from school and says mom,
I think I am gay. Mom is frantic and she takes him
to a biologist and he runs blood test and every test
he can to try and find some reason why this kid
thinks she is gay. He tells mom that there is nothing
wrong with your daughter her biology is correct
and she is 100 percent girl. So, mom does not like
the answer and she goes and takes her daughter
to a psychologist he examines her and talks to her
about her gay talk. After checking her out he
reaches the conclusion that if she thinks she is gay,
then she is gay. He recommends sex change
therapy and everything one needs to change their
gender. This will cure your daughter. Then the mom
is now seriously confused after all the psychologist
is a doctor, he is supposed to know what he is
talking about, right? So, mom goes to her family
doctor and he looks ta the Biologist report and the
Psychologist report. Then he asks the kid why do
you think your gay? She says well if I was a boy
like my older brother, I would get to play football,
basketball, and be on some really cool teams and
play sports. Doctor says why don't you play sports
now she says I am not old enough. So who is
ethical in these Scenarios?

The biologist surely ethical because he can prove

beyond all doubt that her genes are female. The
Family Doctor is ethical because he finds that the
reason, she says this is because the kid thinks her
gender is the reason, she does not get to play the
same sports. Facts are if it was a boy the same
age, he could not play those sports either. The
Family doctor has an ethical premise to treat his
patients with his best medicine available. The
medicine this kid needs is something she can do
that her brother cannot do because of his age.
Subjecting this child to hormone treatments and
the indoctrination of sexual identity causing gender
dysphoria in this child is about evasive treatment
that can happen for this kid. This is so unethical
and based on a philosophy touted by Descartes, "I
think therefore I am."
The psychologist relativistic answer to this kids’
problem was going to create a disaster that will
keep this kid in their office for the rest of their lives
trying to find who they are supposed to be. No
ethics there in that cure, no precept or standard by
which things should be done, just relativistic
indoctrination of our babies.

We can come to the same conclusion for sociology

and cultural anthropology. These sciences have
lost their way and jump out of their expertise for
social opinions and social engineering (meddling
with our souls and minds) God forbid. These
sciences would stick to how societies function and
how cultures function and what seems to happen
when this type of behavior is present in the context
of social arrangement. These sciences would serve
mankind well if they concentrated on the
descriptive of behavior rather than sending people
on a cruel journey of gender dysphoria. I suggest
this is the only true value that these disciplines can
bring to our fallen world of less and less ethics,
morals, and acceptable behaviors.
There is much to say about ethics which I will get
out of this death trap of psychology, sociology
anthropology and ethics. These learned things hurt
more than they help and operate in realm they are
not qualified to operate.
Just to leave you with some food to digest:
How about naturalistic ethics?
Humanistic ethics,
individual ethics,
transcendental ethics
situational ethics
Ethics and sanctification
△ ▽ Reply
Jack Bean − ⚑
a year ago

I realise this is from 1987 and revised in 2010.

However the author has been fooled by those with
no ethics and zero integrity. i.. Cultural Marxists.

The comment about Apartheid is ridiculous. The

term was manipulated by Cultural Marxists. It was
used as a neo-liberal construct to label and vilify.
It was used as target name to call people “Racist”.
It is no different form the new neo-liberal names
like “Denier” “Anti-Vaxxer” in the time of COVID
that we see being used to label individuals or
groups or to ostracise them as pariah or an outcast
or someone who's to be despised and avoided and
shunned for or some non-apparent “political”
offense they have committed. No different from
how Jews were ostracised and labelled with a
yellow star and called “Juden”. It is no different to
the neo-liberal Marxist communist label of “white
supremacist” or colonialist.

The word “apartheid” actually is a word in a

language called Afrikaans. It was a language of a
group of initially white people in South Africa. The
word actually means separate development.
What happened in South Africa prior to the ANC
take over in 1994 by the socialist/communist
infiltration into the society and then when the ANC
came to power. The previous regime the National
Party tried to legalise the freedom of association
and called it separate development. This was leapt
upon by the left-wing socialists and communists
and liberals and labelled “Apartheid”. This was the
start of the downfall of the country.

We now have the opposite. It is forced integration

and is legislated and called anti-apartheid
legislation. Freedom of choice has been legislated
away.

Is it not strange that affirmative action was created

to help minority groups in the USA yet in South
Africa it is used to help majority groups?

South Africa is the only country in the world where

affirmative action is in the favour of the majority
who has complete political control. The fact that
the political majority requires affirmative action to
protect them against a 9% minority group is
testament to a complete failure on their part to
build their own wealth-producing structures -- so
that their only solution is to take it from others.
(Taken from Ineptocracy by David Hill)

People need to understand that the Afrikaners

were no different from any other group of people in
history who wanted to be self-governed and
believe in self-determination. It is no different from
the Amish belief system, of religion, culture values
and value systems, aspirations, like-thinking and
life-style or being “like-minded”. It originates from
Alsatian Anabaptistism. Many Afrikaners were
Baptists and are Christians. They are deeply
religious people. Many are Calvinists.

Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition or

Reformed Protestantism) is a major branch of
Protestantism that follows the theological tradition
and forms of practice set down by John Calvin and
other Reformation-era theologians.It emphasises
the sovereignty of God and the authority of the
Bible.. Calvinists broke from the Catholic Church in
the 16th century.

It is also pertinent to note that it is also the

unalienable rights of people under common natural
law i.e. To associate with—or disassociate from—
any person or group. It is a right to freedom of
choice.

When you realise and look at the history you will

comprehend that it was not the Afrikaner/White
South Africans who started the segregation and it
had nothing to with Verwoerd either.

Some inconvenient facts:

In 1809 the 'Native Pass Law' of the BRITISH
government compelled blacks to carry a pass
book. (Verwoerd not born yet).
"In 1865 Sir Theophilis Shepstone prohibited
blacks in the province of Natalia to have any voting
power. (Verwoerd still not born).
In 1894 "Cecil Rhodes prevented Krom Hendriks, a
coloured, from joining the national cricket team to
England. (Verwoerd 1year old)
"In 1905 Rhodes compelled schools in the Cape
Province to separate white British and Black pupils.
(Verwoerd 12 years old )
In 1913 the BRITISH 'Native Law Act' prohibited
black people from owning land.
(Verwoerd 20, and still a student).
"In 1925 BRITISH Minister, HW Sampson,
promulgated the act on Labour Demarcation to
divide whites and blacks. (Verwoerd not a politician
yet).
"In 1927 the 'immorality Act', in BRITISH controlled
Natal, prohibited intimacy between whites and
blacks. These were all BRITISH instituted, and not
by Verwoerd.

The truth requires ethics too.

△ ▽ 1 Reply

✉ Subscribe ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data

Try Our Ethics App »

($"&)'%-='>?@)='%:=)$&>A' !

+,-../0,%1(23(-%45-
,6607(8%(3971:

Vari Hall, Santa Clara University

500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
408-554-5319 
Maps & Directions
Contact Us

! " # $ %

0?@A2'2BC'-CD2CE
News
Privacy Policy
Ethics Experts for Media
Donate

FE@GE0!6
Focus Areas
Events
Training
Email Sign-up

EC6@AE-C6
Ethical Decision Making
Articles
Cases
Curricula
"Accessibility
Title IX

: , 2 3, % 1 0 , - , © 2022· Login | ! "

/27;(-:73< Accessibility