The last group presentation on ethics was really interesting. It almost made me laugh when I realized that I had never considered Mother Teresa to be a controversial character. In listening to the presentation, it was instantly very clear to me why some did not support her. I just wonder why I've never heard this debate before. Regardless, after realizing that someone so famous for her efforts, whether you believe they were good or bad, just proved another point in my head. It doesn't matter what you ever do, there will always be someone who supports it and someone who opposes it. There are countless ways to justify things, and countless ways to oppose things. This could be people, ideas, actions, statements, anything really. The point here being, that people, as individuals, need to acknowledge their own personal biases when reacting to others (actions, words, etc). If slash when they do, the criticism becomes much more valuable. Mother Teresa clearly thought she was doing good work for the world, but her religious background dictated a lot of her actions which is the only part that many do not agree with. No one could ever question her dedication to trying to change the world.

Theory on Ethics, Matthew Reeser, Reflective

It seems to me that most of our troubles in society are self-inflicted and miss understood. Most people do not try to comprehend the nature of society and the repercussions their actions have on themselves and others. Because we do not often criticize our selves constructively= creating a dialogue within ourselves and between others, and not actively doing anything about it, our society gets stuck in its own garbage and is often, only motivated to radically change through necessity.

This has to do with ethics because it is our inability to understand its nature that we struggle to do much about anything in this world. Seriously, almost no one understands what ethics is and when you have a huge lack of interest and miss understanding on the individual level it will carry over directly to the global.

I believe that ethics is a very personal subject and people will have different opinions on what it means and how to act on it. So, the purpose for understanding ethics is not to try to define it, because you can't, unless if you are psychotically in favor of creating a world wide definition that can be used through states or institutions like the UN and Disney.

Defining it is a waste of time, so this means we must focus our efforts on understanding the natural relationships between peoples that are fueled by ethics. I think ethics can not be defined as far as what is right and wrong, but its nature can be better understood through theory. Theories help us understand how something works in certain circumstances and environments, so it would be very applicable in our understanding of how ethics is manifested in society and how we can deal with it.

Whether or not this will motivate people to actually ask tough questions about themselves and perhaps act on them is up in the air. I'd like to think so, but who knows. Humanity seems to be a slow learner of History and if I was a betting man (which I may be) then I'd bet on humanity to continue to mess-up. Progress is something attainable, but it is only true and valid when motivated by decent principles. Means do not justify the ends.

Ethics and Development

So, we've been talking a lot in class about ethics especially concerning development. For instance, we discussed how our motivations for helping with Third World issues can be ethical or unethical and yet have an outcome that could be argued to be ethical because if we did nothing, well this would be better than nothing. To put an example to this vague concept, I turn back to microfinance, as usual.

As I mentioned in class, there are hundreds of billions of dollars that are going for microfinance. Why? Well, for multiple reasons. First, organizations can make a profit, even it is marginal. Second, organizaitons can receive positive PR. Third, many believe that microfinance is doing "good" in the world and should continue to be around.

One might argue that doing microfinance is unethical because the motivation for going into is self-satisfying by receving profit and good PR, but yet would we better off without microfinance? Or would the money be more effective in going into something else other than microfinance?

Another stance to take, which I have chosen to take in my thesis, is that there is so much money going into microfinance, even though there are limitations to the impact microfinance can have on poverty. Why are organizations continue to follow the proposed model of microfinance when there have been proven limitations? The focus on microfinance has inhibited larger structural reform. If microfinance were pursued as a complement to wider reform rather than a substitute, then perhaps microfinance would be more successful. But because of the motivations for doing microfinance, by many, the model may never be able to truly evolve outside the bounds of the encourage microfinance model. Thus, the motivations, that I view as unethical, have produced unethical results: the prevention from long-term, sustainable progress for the poor communities where microfinance has intervened.

This model of looking at the motivations for doing "something" ("just ad bellum") and looking at the means ("just in bellum"), and the results ("just post bellum") can show us something about what we have been doing or what we have done. Of course, these may not be taken into account when thinking about pursuing an action (As Will has pointed out), yet when these actions are being pushed as ethically moral or as having a positive impact, we need to keep these actions in check. Ethics may be one way to do so, but not the only way.

Nihilism...be afraid! [Will Brehm, Week 9, Reflective]

Oh, ethics how you make me think. Should morality, virtues, or utility define you? If I use morals, then I get trapped in a constructivist’s debate. Defining morals is contextual and intersubjective. If I liberate country X, I justify my action through my duty to help the citizens of country X. But, the rulers in country X, whom I just overthrew, will probably view my actions of invasion of a sovereign nation as immoral (and therefore unethical).

If I use virtues to define ethnics, then I trap myself into a dogma that may not be shared worldwide. My idea of justice, a component of virtues, may differ from that of Country X. It also falls prey to evolution of just want justice is. Is the death penalty justice for a murder? The argument becomes skewed if we base ethnics on virtues. (Other virtues include generosity and charity.)

If I use utilitarianism to define ethics, I get stuck into a statistical nightmare. Just as a student mentioned in class, how does one define, empirically, how many people Mother Teresa helped? An act that helps many people may be deemed ethical, but using this standard to critique other acts is problematic: again, context matters.

Ethics, to me, does not come to the table when making decisions. (Beliefs and values might, but ethics do not.) No individual actor is an ethicist while being a “decider.” Actors make decisions based on the knowledge available. Ethical judgments are left up to, well, everyone after the decision has already been made—people like us. I don’t believe George Bush thought about ethical questions while coming to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He had interests, maybe justified by morals, but did not consider ethics.

In this sense, I feel ethics is quite troubling. Other people define my ethicalness by evaluating my actions through individual, unique standards. You define my ethics. Therefore, nihilism is my new approach. I do not subscribe to any set dogma; rather, I will judge ethics a case-to-case, person-to-person basis.

Perceptions of Ethics

Overall, when discussing the topic of ethics, it is important to remember that although it may seem that there is a unified global belief as to ethical and unethical actions, there are many different views that circulate the world. Granted, there are several behaviors that can be classified as ethical or unethical regardless of where you go in the world, but mostly, ethics differ by religion, race, nationality and gender.Suicide bombers do not see there actions as unethical, although the majority of the western world would disagree. An immense number of countries decided that the use of land mines is an unethical practice due to the large amount of civilian casualties caused by their use. The United States opposes this, claiming that land mines are the only sure way to prevent a large scale invasion of South Korea by North Korea. The point is that ethics seem to be ingrained in one's own judgment. It is not easy to manipulate and change. This needs to be considered while acknowledging that ethics varies by region.

Evolution of Just Causes

After reading Ian Holliday's "When is a cause just?," it is interesting to note that two other people picked up and blogged on the same point that I found interesting. In determining if a war is just, one has to look at the proportionality (ends). Logically, one would do a body count and determine whether the cause justified the number of deaths. However, it is so much more than that. Looking at the war in Iraq, many (...probably most) would argue that we have no right being there and soldiers are losing their lives for no reason. That is what they would argue now...but waht about in 20 years?? 50 years?? 100 years?? What if in 50 years, Iraq gets its act together to become one of the leading democratic nations in the global community? What if it boasted a stable government, a growing economy, and a high standard of living for its citizens? I am sure then people would argue that the war was just. I guess the point that I am trying to explore is how right now we could argue that a war is not just, but eventually that could evolve. Theory is always evolving, human thought is always evolving...I assume that goes hand in hand with our thoughts on morality.

The Future of Poverty Substantive

I also liked Nandy's article because I believe that it highlights many important factors in the nature of global poverty and many country's responses to it. I am a staunch opponent of developmentalism for various reasons, but believe that it is a very interesting idea that has powerful repercussions in the world. It is talked about in this article as being the biggest response much of the 'advanced' or 'prosperous' world takes in battling with poverty. Its flaws are also touched upon and its limited perspective is exposed. Much of the world is poor by our standards, but that does not mean most of the world is unhappy. There is a huge difference between being poor and being destitute. Much of the West treats the third world countries like they have a disease and must be cured without really considering their socio-economic realities. To be poor does not necessarily mean to also be unhappy. Many of the peoples that we try to 'develop' can teach us a lot about being happy and what really matters in life. Articles like this help balance out perspectives if they are taken to heart.