ethical behaviour

Thesis: ethical behaviour is a learned behaviour Human society has always been shaped by war and political disruptions. Human history, our history, is first and foremost the history of war. Those on top of the ladder might have been exchanged quite a few times, Marie Antoinette during the French revolution and the Tsar family during the Russian revolution being just a few of the examples that we keep in memory. Nonetheless, no one can deny that those on the bottom have always been the ones going through the biggest hurdles, feeling left out from political decisions whilst being crushed by the decisions of those on top. In this essay, we’re going to discuss our current society’s mentality when it comes to helping others and how our history and the way things came to be have set us all up for disaster when it comes to the most human-like behaviour; empathy towards the pains of others, the willingness to see everybody succeed and the mere preventing of someone else’s unhappiness. For that matter, I’ll fund my points from Peter Singers Text “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, whilst trying to analyse the ignored reasons for everybody’s responsibility for others having to die due to causes as simple as the lack of food. How can such a species as ours with the developments and findings that we’ve had be faced with such shockingly primitive problems? Democracy, playing such a big role in what we consider to be a well-developed country, I believe that, most of us have yet to overcome important mental barriers when it comes to the power that we now as citizens do hold in our hands. Most of our history has never lived in such conditions where your voice does indeed matter and virtually anything you buy and therefor invest in is a political stand. Humankind has never known a concept where the majority of the population wasn’t voiceless and dependent on the will of our superiors (Kings and Queens). We were ultimately forced to obey or else die, no opinion was needed, and no one was held accountable. What I mean by all this is the following. Since the existence of the middle class more and more people have grown familiar with financial relief and material accumulation. There is no us against the King. The Middleclass is far from being a part of the cast-based society. Yet, as I see it, we prevail in a fatalistic mind space. “Intended by god”, “nothing will change anyway “or “nobody cares anyhow, especially not those in power” are well known expressions or thought patterns that every single one of us has thought himself or at least heard others mention it. This fatalistic approach is still engraved in our souls and therefore tremendously shapes our actions. No wonder that countries where censorship is the most apparent will have the biggest struggle with just realising what power they hold and how important their actions are. The butterfly effect explains it well. I am by no means implying that the government has not played its role in preventing us from escaping the illusion where our individual action has no part in the big scheme. In democracy, where in theory there is freedom of speech, the information that we obtain is often one sided, guiding us into thinking a certain way. Journalism in our western world is morphing into a media of suggestion. Whereas qualitative journalism should be defined by asking the tough questions and challenging politics. Knowledge is power and being educated about our rights and understanding that our voice is just as valuable as anybody else’s is the very condition of ethical behaviour. Ethical behaviour is defined by acknowledging the more sustainable course of action and considering the wellbeing of a large group of people. How are we supposed to live dutiful whilst simultaneously believing that we are just a speck of dust? It’s impossible. And yet, our world is calling for people who live ethically or else no pressure will be felt. We are living in a state of emergency where nonetheless most of us prefer to simply shut their eyes to what is currently still happening in our modern-day society. Therefore, I would suggest that institutions such as the UN should be granted more power so as to condemn countries and societies where humans are blatantly being abused and let to believe that they are indeed just a speck of dust. China being just one example, where working conditions of employees are well known. In Peter Singers essay he starts of by stating the obvious, something that no one can abnegate, that is; suffering, and death is bad. Plus; is in our power to prevent anything bad from happening whilst promoting what is good. He then elaborates that we do not need to sacrifice anything morally significant while doing so. I couldn’t agree more, as I’m sure every homo sapiens sapiens capable of empathy or pure rationality sure does. Yet, I would quickly like to add another point to his argument when it comes to the ignored reasons as I mentioned in the introduction. Do we actually want let alone enjoy or even need to see others happy? We grew fond of our recently found comfort in our everyday life. For many, comfort has given us hunger for more, indefinitely more. This “arrogance” doesn’t imply that we feel a sense of gratitude for what we have now. A roof over our head, a loan, fast transportation etc. is wildly taken for granted. Our economy has made sure that everything is fast, accessible and affordable, consumerism being the fuel for economic growth. Can we actually look around and say that we care about whether or not our neighbour can afford to pay his rent as long as we are able to buy the newest iPhone? The “arrogance” mentioned above but then displayed by royals, has been the reason why the common people have stood up and demanded a state reform. Now that so many more have tasted luxury and abundance; equal treatment does not seem to be on top of our priority list any longer. Our species has to be reminded through history, where we stand now versus where we came from. This self-complacency needs to stop. Peter Singer mentions people dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, an issue that has only gained attention due to its size of emergency via publicity, his essay reflecting reality in 1972. Today with social media, the same problems are being discussed, still, and solutions seem to be overlooked while only “trending” on social media. Peter singer makes an important point when it comes to proximity versus distance of certain issues. He claims that it is deceptive to think to distinguish between the two. He uses the analogy of a child needing help because he/she might drown in the pond. Should there be a discrimination between a child that needs help that you might know versus a child you don’t? Should it make a difference between you as a possible helper being faced alone with it or there being other people around the pond? Should there even be a distinction between the child being right in front of your eyes versus that child being somewhere in Bangladesh? I suggest that we must answer these questions for ourselves, but the simple act of asking those questions might suggest that acting ethically, empathetically or simply not wanting someone to die is not an automatic human behaviour. The bystander effect might be another analogy in this matter where the right action is not an automatic response to someone screaming for help when others are around. We are not living alone in this world, over 7 billion humans, the bystander effect is omnipresent. What we do in fact care about is being faced by legal consequences. Peter Singer reminds us that charitable work is not considered dutiful. Meaning that there is virtually nothing wrong with not being charitable. The same thing cannot be said when it comes to not following the law. In this regard, taking physical proximity into account what might be the main motivation behind someone calling the ambulance when faced with someone else’s unfortune. Was he being charitable or preventing himself from not being sued by risking to not help? We all have a responsibility to act ethically and to raise questions when that isn’t being represented by political will or even the law. We are not simple people living in solitary bubbles, everything is interconnected. Knowing and honouring this very fact makes it so that it is impossible for someone to just simply passing by and not feeling the desire to help and prevent evil from happening. When I say that everything is interconnected, I am not just metaphysically speaking: It is quit political. Let’s not be ignorant about the fact that deciding between ethically, sustainably made clothing and fast fashion has completely opposite consequences. The same goes with the decision between following a plant-based lifestyle and consuming a predominant meet-based diet. The outcome will change immensely. And this is where “freedom of choice” comes in, probably the biggest con argument. What if I choose meat, or my taste butts, over the ethical treatment of animals and what if I choose my brand-new car over the life of innocent children? It doesn’t sound that appealing when put in that way, does it? More people enjoying financial abundance does not imply that their money is being directed towards ethical reasoning. When it comes to the most important argument in Singers essay, at least in my opinion, there can’t be a sustainable way of preventing famine for instance in the long run without considering population control. In this sense, population control seems like the biggest toll on our “personal freedom”. Paradoxically, science is investing more and more on measures to not only helping western people to live longer (which doesn’t imply them living more happily) but also, simultaneously, “creating” more lives. Since more women might only consider having a child after their forties and there being a significant amount of women not being physically able to bare children, egg donation is on the rise and has clearly been made a business of. Another “ray of hope” being surrogates. To conclude with my essay, I hope that I made it quite clear that the human species isn’t, at least in the way as I see it, a species made in heaven. We are not perfect, but we can and eventually must work towards us being the best versions of ourselves. There are multiple astonishing examples op people worthy of their name, who act for themselves whilst considering others. Who defend their rights and those of others because they know deep down that it will alter their lives as well. Philosophy can be a great tool in that it can be used as a means of ethically considering our action and checking in with ourselves so that we can finally step outside of our shadow state. We need to reinforce laws in order to protect the most innocent; children. Parents and teachers need to be aware of their surroundings and educate their children/pupils so that they know and can be conscious of the responsibility that they eventually will be accounted for. Ethical behaviour is not an automatic behaviour but a learned one in that we need to leave our preconceived illusions and perception of the world and ourselves behind and rebuild the new. Bibliography: https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm (last visited 2.7.19)