Two wrongs don't make a right
It is hard for someone living in the realm of black and white to explain the idea of ethics and their immutability. Relative ethics has taken control of our society like some sort of zombie fungus. This lack of moral conviction creates a state close to anarchy where every individual feels like he or she has a responsibility, duty and right to say or do whatever feels good or can be justified with a few well-placed words, through the adoption of victimhood or through some other contrived and thinly veiled excuse based on the obscure machinations of the human brain rationalizing something that is harmful to oneself, others or the environment.
There is a right and a wrong, and there is no way around it. The most often cited example in ethics classes is that of literary figure Jean Valjean who is imprisoned for 20 years for stealing bread to feed his starving family. Aside from the actual fact that the theft he perpetrated robbed the family, which he was trying to feed, of Valjean, people will often cite his act as justifiable, i.e. it is okay to steal if the person is doing so for the good of his or her family.
The problem is that if this is the case, then America and its ethical members should have no problem with either providing food for the poor or allowing all of the poor to steal when they are hungry. Systemic hunger is an evil, and stealing in order to eat is the lesser of two evils. However, they are both still wrong, and we haven’t even covered who the actual victim of the theft was.
Even if ethics are absolute, there is still room for a whole lot of choice because not every decision is an ethical one. There are decisions that can be made without having to consult the Great Almighty Jiminy Cricket. The choice of ice cream flavor has no moral implication once the choice to eat ice cream has been made. We can argue that eating ice cream is wrong depending on the treatment of the cows, the level of organic farming practices used in the cultivation of the milk and the amount of methane gases that cows produce. However, the actual choice of flavor once the decision for ice cream has been made is of no consequence.
Two wrongs can never make a right. Even if someone seems justified in doing wrong, it is still wrong. Even those with a strong moral compass will choose to do wrong. It is just a fact of human nature and a reaction to a system that places a value on everything, including the life of a person and the essentials that are needed for survival and to thrive. Until human beings can rise above the idea of gray and figure out what is right and wrong, people can expect to see corporations get away with doing wrong and systems that impose evil on the planet.
Maleficent: Evil isn't complicated
Journalism ethics from Stephen Glass
There is a right and a wrong, and there is no way around it. The most often cited example in ethics classes is that of literary figure Jean Valjean who is imprisoned for 20 years for stealing bread to feed his starving family. Aside from the actual fact that the theft he perpetrated robbed the family, which he was trying to feed, of Valjean, people will often cite his act as justifiable, i.e. it is okay to steal if the person is doing so for the good of his or her family.
The problem is that if this is the case, then America and its ethical members should have no problem with either providing food for the poor or allowing all of the poor to steal when they are hungry. Systemic hunger is an evil, and stealing in order to eat is the lesser of two evils. However, they are both still wrong, and we haven’t even covered who the actual victim of the theft was.
Even if ethics are absolute, there is still room for a whole lot of choice because not every decision is an ethical one. There are decisions that can be made without having to consult the Great Almighty Jiminy Cricket. The choice of ice cream flavor has no moral implication once the choice to eat ice cream has been made. We can argue that eating ice cream is wrong depending on the treatment of the cows, the level of organic farming practices used in the cultivation of the milk and the amount of methane gases that cows produce. However, the actual choice of flavor once the decision for ice cream has been made is of no consequence.
Two wrongs can never make a right. Even if someone seems justified in doing wrong, it is still wrong. Even those with a strong moral compass will choose to do wrong. It is just a fact of human nature and a reaction to a system that places a value on everything, including the life of a person and the essentials that are needed for survival and to thrive. Until human beings can rise above the idea of gray and figure out what is right and wrong, people can expect to see corporations get away with doing wrong and systems that impose evil on the planet.
Maleficent: Evil isn't complicated
Journalism ethics from Stephen Glass