Blog #5: Ethics and morals- subjective or universal?- Cole Guinther

 Ethics and morals have been a topic that I think about often and find to be unique; especially social norms and the behaviors that people generally consider "ethical" in our society and others. From being exposed to new cultures and societal discussions though, I've learned to realize that my own understanding of ethics not only differs from people in different cultures but between people that I live a very similar life with  as well (fellow college students, friends, family, etc.). The ethical guidelines that people follow are only similar to a certain point; some are rooted from the rules that people are taught as children from family members, some from friends, and even more learned from the world we're exposed to. This makes me wonder: how different are people's ethical/moral compass from one another? And what are these ethics most influenced by? Are there any set ethical guidelines that are universal among all humans on Earth, or is "ethics" just a blanket term for the whole range of rules we should follow? While ethics are simplified to certain rules that we are expected to follow as human beings, I have grown to wonder how similar it actually is among one another- even our closest relationships.

Although this is a complicated topic, I've come to believe that there aren't any "set in stone" ethical rules that every human follows universally. It seems that there are certain rules created in our society that provide a sort of structure to determine whether we are "good" human beings, but much of it seems subjective and up to interpretation. Perspective can completely shift a concept like ethics. If there is a universal ethical rule that every person follows though no matter the time period or background, I would be very interested to know what that would be.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog #13 Dr. Weston’s Philosophy of Life

In Lewis’ Out of A Silent Planet a certain physicist, Dr. Weston kidnaps Ransom and takes him aboard his spaceship headed towards Malacandra. Once Ransom awakes from his slumber and realizes that he is in a spaceship he begins to question the estranged physicist. With little resistance Weston begins to explain his philosophy of life. Ransom responded, “ you hold all the cards, and I must make the best of it. I consider your philosophy of life to be raving lunacy. I suppose all that stuff about infinity and eternity means that you think you are justifiable in doing anything–absolutely anything–here and now, on the off chance that some creatures or other descended from man as we know him may crawl about a few centuries longer in some part of the universe.” Weston responded, “ Yes–anything whatsoever”. Weston resembles one of the great evils of mankind. That being the telos of evolution or in other words survival of the fittest. That is the basic idea the it is a means to an end and not ...
Read more

Experience vs encounter and its implications

 To experience something is notably different from encountering something. I may experience a bear at a zoo, or dangerously encounter one in a forest. One implies perceiving, and the other implies communion (which could be good or bad). Our discussion of these concepts in class got me thinking, "Does our the interconnectedness of the internet create a culture of experience but not encounter?" I know that questions includes a lot, so let me unpack it. The internet fundamentally changes the way humans being relate to one another. I myself, having being basically raised on the internet have now gotten to the age where I realize my experience of childhood, was very different from the rest of the history of the world. I believe has created a reality in which anyone can experience almost anything, although mediated. I can watch as many cute dog videos as I want, but those dogs in the video will never watch me. I think because of this, a renewed appreciation for the embodied, the sa...
Read more

3/15/2023- The Perfect Sacrifice: Questions about Psyche and Ungit

  I was struck by the scene in which the priest of Ungit describes the reason that Psyche must be sacrificed to Ungit in order to avert the various calamities which befell the nation of Glome. He waxes poetic about the nature of the gods, and that they demand nothing less than the best in order to appease their wrath. He states “That is not enough, King. And you know it. We must find the Accursed. And she (or he) must die by the rite of the Great Offering. What is a thief more than a bull or a man? This is not to be a common sacrifice. We must make the Great Offering.” This sounds a great deal like Christ’s sacrifice within Christian theology. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice- the “Great Offering” made to cleanse the sins of the world. However, the difference between the two lies in the satisfaction of the wrath of the gods. For Psyche’s tale, her supposed sacrifice is not enough to quell the wrath of the gods, however, the divine nature of Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to overcome ...
Read more