I enacted the effort in improving “Ethical=Right and Unethical=Wrong” by reviewing the comments and suggestions made by the class instructor on the previous assignment. The instructor indicated that the introduction section within my paper needs to be more comprehensive. The instructor elaborated further specifying that introductions within scholarly writing should present specific points, major thoughts, and important ideas that are contained within a paper. I took the instructor’s advice and made the effort to have a more comprehensive introduction explaining what will be discussed within the paper.
The second suggestion the instructor emphasized on was my usage of passive voice within my writing, when I should be utilizing an active voice. Taking the instructor’s feedback on passive usage into account, I continued to make the conscious effort of eliminating passive wording.
Ethical decisions doesn’t always make a decision right in every situation or context.
Similarly, not all unethical decisions are wrong decisions in every situation or context. When looking at ethics, it is important to take into consideration the cultural aspect of how ethics is perceived. What is considered ethical in one part of the world can be very different in another part of the world. Would it then be hard to imagine that individuals or varying experience may differ on their views regarding ethics? The answer to that question would be a resounding, no. Individuals have different experiences that shape their views and distinctions between right and wrong. A clear distinction between what is ethically right and unethically wrong will always vary due to different variables that individuals are exposed to.
This paper will first look at providing support to why ethical equals being right before providing an opposing view against such a stance. The paper will then move toward supporting why unethical equals being wrong before providing support opposing that unethical equals being wrong. Lastly, I’ll attempt to explain my position on the matter by providing the rationale for my stance.
Ethics are the standards of what is considered right and wrong within a given society upon societal values. Ethics have value within society because it places a moral emphasis on individuals to conduct their actions in accordance to what societal standards deem as right and acceptable. The judicial system within the United States is an example of how our system acts to be ethical by giving individuals charged with a crime a chance to defend their innocence. Although the government may not be required to provide the opportunity to defend oneself, they do so because it is ethically right. Rivera (2015) stated, everyone has the right to legally defend our interests, against those with whom we have a legal dispute. Instances where what is considered unethical becomes ethical and right do occur. An example of this would be where two distrustful people find themselves stuck in an elevator with guns drawn and pointed at each other (Kavka,1983). Each acting ethically in self defense to protect themselves from harm which is ethical and right of them to do.
What is considered ethical is not always right because ethics is not viewed or portrayed the same by everyone. Kavaka (1983) noted a view that even if everyone benefits from general adherence to a system of moral rules, individuals may benefit more from not following the rules while still benefiting from those that do comply. Rivera (2015) expressed how even though every individual has a right to defend themselves ethically when accused although considered right can be wrong. Although it is ethically right by law for everyone to be able to defend themselves against accusations, is it still right when the purpose of the accused is immoral or unjust? Ethically the answer would be no because the intent is to utilize the system to further their own selfish motive. Reinforcing the point that what is ethical is not always right and what is unethical is not always wrong because of the different variables affecting the thoughts and intentions of individuals.
Unethical actions need to be regulated to keep order within any given society. If unethical actions go unchecked, society is likely to unravel creating a higher chance of immorality to happen. Benatar (2011) discussed in “A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments” both the view for euthanasia and the opposition for it. Euthanasia is viewed by many as unethical and wrong for many reasons, two of which are religion and the potential for abuse. To act in protecting society from themselves, a vast amount of countries prohibits euthanasia finding it unethical to take a life. In taking the position against euthanasia, countries are making the proactive approach to prevent the abuse of such methods to prevent wrong behavior (Benatar, 2011). Another example mentioned earlier of how unethical actions are wrong is the representation of a legal client that have unjust motives (Rivera, 2015). If a lawyer decided to represent a client knowing the client has an unjust motive to deceive the system, it would be considered wrong for the lawyer to continue represent such a client.
Not everything unethical happens to be wrong, in some countries acting unethical can be the only way business can get done. In Rivera’s (2015) article the scenario of having to represent a client with an unjust motive would be considered unethical but the right thing to do. Rivera (2015) found it unethical to represent such a client, however found it right to still represent the client on the basis that we all have a right to legally defend our interest against those with whom we have legal matters with, with one of those rights being the access to a lawyer’s advice. Kavaka (2015) also pointed out how two unethical actions can equal a right ethical reaction. For example, businesses that are always competing within their country and world-wide faces extreme pressures to compete successfully with other companies. The companies that can act unethically abroad face advantages placing companies that do comply at a disadvantage. Such disadvantages make a case for companies that playing along unethically might the only way to stay competitive and compete. Therefore, allowing those companies to adopt as other companies have causes them to view unethical actions as right when dealing abroad.
My rationale is that ethics is neither always seen as right or wrong but varies. The way individuals see ethics vary due to cultural difference, the context of the situation at hand, and the type of exposure gained within their environment. The need to be ethical within society is good because it helps regulate society’s conduct. However, being ethical is not always beneficial because it places an individual at a disadvantage compared to others that can get away with unethical conduct. I support that unethical actions need to be regulated in preventing wrongs from happening within society, but I also see the advantages for opposing the view of unethical being wrong.
In summary, ethics is often associated between what is right and wrong. A clear distinction between what is ethically right and unethically wrong will always vary due to different variables that individuals are exposed to. The paper began by exploring ethics as equaling what is right and the opposition to ethics being right. The paper then looked at unethical equaling wrong and the opposition for unethical equaling wrong. This paper provided examples supporting the claim that ethics will not always equal right or wrong but will vary from person to person.