Years ago, in one of my group psychosocial sessions I had decided the group needed an introduction to ethical decision making, so I asked who could give me a definition of ethics.  No one offered an answer. I asked again.  I got a couple of answers that were not even remotely connected.  This was not good, I had assumed (wrongly) I would have some foundation on which to begin a session.

With that in mind, I have decided to mention ethics to my little group of readers.

Ethics is defined as: 1) study of morality’s effect on conduct: the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct  2) a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for a person or group.

Ethics is not a list of rules for what to do our not to do.  It appears that most people like lists of rules, clear bright lines saying “don’t do this” or “do this” to be morally sound.  It absolves them of making difficult moral choices. Leaders also like rules because it allows them micromanagement powers over their followers.  Rules are the hallmark of the world’s mono-theistic religions, even when their founders apparently opposed such rules. Jesus was very clear in his denunciation of the rule makers in favor of an ethics based on “love thy neighbor as thyself”; however, the first thing his cadre of disciples did once he was gone, was to start imposing a list of rules.

Ethics is a personal code of morality based on a set of principles. These principles do not change while the specific do’s and don’ts may evolve based on circumstance.  It is my experience that few people have any such principles. Either they live by a set of rules or they do the equivalent of tossing a coin at each moral decision.  It is for this reason we tend to have those who live with no rules at all or people who are consumed with rules.

The problem with both is that such behavior harms both the individual and the larger society.  With no internal way to tell right from wrong, the individual invariably tramples on the rights and needs of all in their circle of contact; thus making deep intimate, mutually supportive relationships impossible. On the larger scale it breeds a world of survival of the most brutal, might makes right. In such a society  nearly all people in the society are oppressed and  life is dominated by fear.

The problem with a rigid set of rules is two-fold.  One is that first the individual becomes oppressed by the rules, this precludes any real moral choices. The rules are, by definition, more important than the individual. As such rules can and do cause more harm than they are supposed to alleviate. Oppression of both the individual and society is always the result of a rules based morality.   The other problem is that rules are, by nature, rigid, and when they are broken in part they are shattered in whole. As such the rules based person has moral latitude to move rapidly from verbally mistreating others to physical mistreatment with no intervening layer of morality.  It is this syndrome that causes a celibate priest to go from sexual thoughts to preying on vulnerable children with no steps in-between.  With a rigid rule, no small compromises are made as so what could be a small breach becomes a cataclysm.

One who lives by an ethical system based on principle can avoid these issues.  Will they always behave morally? No, by nature, ethics lend themselves to allow the individual to delude themselves into justifying, unjust acts. However, by use of ethics the individual has a way back free from overreaction or acceptance.

We who have a clearly defined ethical system must be the beacon of reason to our circle of influence. Not as proselytes, but a reasonable resource in a world full of unreasonable voices.  Ultimately the heart of my career has always been just this thing, whether I worked for a religious organization, a private non-profit, the military or the public schools I have always filled the role of ethicist. However, in my role as private citizen I have found the same need to be filled, and so I have tried all these years to do so.

I’ll just close with noting that as a classical liberal, my ethics are driven by thinkers who work from that position.  I most closely identify with the writings of John Rawls, but would generally consider myself a Kantian.  Like both Rawls and Kant I come from a historical Christian position but do not believe that either the Bible or any supernatural revelation is needed to arrive at the liberal conclusions.  Indeed, many of the great religious traditions share the concept that ethics are best drawn from a pool of compassion for ones fellow man and the demand that my ethical choices be such that if everyone made the same choice, society would be fair to all.