Name: Pang Ding Giun Unit code/subject: UAPO 2033 Ethics and Contemporary Social Issues Student ID:

10ADB05206 Lecture Group: L(1) Tutorial Group: T(1)

Ethics and Peace

The study of ethics began with the Greeks, they attempted to separate those fallible human behavior against divine ideals. The word ethics derived from two Greek words, which is ethikos, meaning correct social behavior; and ethos, meaning a character of a person. Ethics became the philosophy of the rightness of the actions being defined by their consequences. The meaning of ethics is very subjective. Different people have different perspective of this word ethics. Many people are trying to equate this word with feelings, religion, peoples standard, laws, or they just try to be ignorant of the word. One of the best definitions to explain this word is that Ethics refers to well founded standards of right and wrong that prescribed what humans ought to do. Ethics can also be referring as the studies and development of ones ethical standards. Let us pause here, and we go to study another word, which everyone wants it and have no idea how to develop it but few Peace. What is Peace? Is peace just related to only the end of war? Is peace just about releasing the vengeful spirit of a person by killing, tormenting on another person so that the person can be free from sufferings?Peace is the essence of our existence. We have the freedom to pursue the things we like to do, our dreams. Freedom to express ourselves, relate with other people with understanding, good will, tolerance and cooperation. What does ethic have to do with peace? How does these two words relate to each other in their context? Were going to discuss about the theories which gives

different perspective of peace. Then, were going to analyze how different ethics promote their own peace but to achieve true peace it would require great tolerance from each of the people.

Classical Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, both of them state that Happiness is the ultimate good! They went on to further explain that pleasure, feeling good and neglected pains are the only things that human desires or pursuing the desirable things which can promote or elevate pleasure and the pain can be evaded. That was their theory of life. This means that a persons intentions or actions is morally right as long as he/she can create or build the most happiness in himself or to other people. Their actions will be considered wrong or judged if they produce pain to themselves or on other people. In other words, the ethics of a culture will only be morally right, if that ethics can give, promote or build peace in their culture. We can relate the word peace as happiness. For that, we need to look even deeper on the meaning of the word happiness. The definition of happiness is a feeling of inner peace and satisfaction. A person can experience happiness when there are no worries, fears, stresses or obsessive thinking. It usually happens when we love to do or we have the freedom to get what we want or desire the things that we value much in our lives. One of the examples we can use as for this theory is the bombing on Japan 2 cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many debaters have debated that the actions conducted by United States was unnecessary. On the other hand, the Japanese were also working on building atomic bonds and aimed on United States. However, U.S had made the first move by first bombing them with these breath-taking bombs. Through their actions,

many lives which were governed by the Japanese were saved. Even though, we killed thousands of them, it is for a greater good for the people of the world. Peace was achieved, happiness was produced causing the actions of the U.S were morally right. Of every theory that has been studied, there will always be a flaw in it. Human beings are not perfect and there is limitation to our perception of this world. People can gain happiness or produce happiness through the selfish desire. One can lie, kill, neglecting the law so that his own desire can be fulfilled. Based on the Utilitarianism theory, a persons action is morally right if they achieved happiness. When the consequence is happiness, we assumed that whatever he did is morally right. Can we accept their actions as morally right ones, even if the actions involve killing, lying, or going against the nature? From Buddhist perspective, people can inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness and satisfaction. Taking back the example of atomic bombing; U.S certainly had done the right thing, because mostly everyone thought that they had rescued them from the domination of the Japanese. However, killing a person is already considered a morally wrong action, not to mention they had killed thousands of innocent people from the bombing. For us, Malaysians would be very happy because we were freed from dominations, but for the Japanese certainly not. For them, it was a tragic moment. As a Malaysian, our perspective was that, U.S had done the right thing, but the Japanese saw it as unjust. Can this Utilitarianism theory be applied to build peace in this world?

Duty Defined Morality: Deontological Theory The word deon is originally a Greek word, which means duty. This theory is based on more of our actions or intentions than what would the outcome would be, whether was it happiness or pain. These people, the deontologist, they dont look at

what good would produce by an action. They look at the actions they put on it. Emmanuel Kant states what is important is not about the sake of producing good result or happiness, but more on the acting for the sake of duty alone. To simplify it, one must have a good will or intention in order to be morally good. He also implied that what makes an action morally good is through the rationality of the action. In order to know how rational is that intentions, he thinks that the actions must be generalized or to be universalized. Meaning, that motive of an action from the person must be able to be followed by all the people all around the world, that motive can be applied by everyone, everywhere and anytime they wanted to. The Ten Commandments from the bible, the book of Exodus would be the example for this deontological theory. From the New Living Translations, in Exodus chapter 20 verses 1 17, the bible clearly states that they must not have any other gods, they must not make themselves an idol of any kind, they must not misuse the name of their God, they must always remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, they must always honor their parents, they must not murder, they must not commit adultery, they must not steal, they must not testify falsely against their neighbor and they must not covet their neighbors house. The Ten Commandments here in the bible shows what are the dos and donts. The bible does not suggest that by observing the outcome, and then only we determine will our actions be right or wrong. They just simply state out what are the actions that are morally right and what are not, and that everyone should follow this commandments in any places at any time. Deontology theory totally goes against the theory of Utilitarianism. Not everyone can exactly follow all the Ten Commandments. What if a person who is in a bankruptcy and he has to feed his family so that they still can sustain to

live, he is in desperation and in need of money. Should he steal? However, the family is starving and needed food so badly, but the bible says that it is not good to steal. Can he be excuse in this kind of situation? If he was to be excused and by universalizing this action, meaning, a person can steal whenever he faced desperation or hard times of bankruptcy. That would not be applicable, because stealing in the bible context is wrong and it is a sin. It would not be able to be universalized unless everyone follows it, but in the modern world, not everyone is following the Ten Commandments. Not all ethics can be followed by all people because people have their own beliefs system, and if a certain ethics from different cultures or from different people hold different views which contradict to our moral values, can peace still be existed in this manner?

Aristotle Virtue Ethics Aristotle has a different view towards ethics. He focuses more on what a person should be, instead of rules of dos and donts that a person should follow. He believed that there is a form or essential nature of a certain things which determine the function itself. That form for a human being would the soul. Without a soul in a person, the body no longer can be used. That function of the soul being imparted in the body is to be rational in the things we are doing, whether by deciding, making judgment, comparing with other people, our decisions have to be rational. Aristotle also believed that virtue is not just some theoretical studies, but it is a habit, it requires practice in our daily lifestyles. It is when that habit became second nature to that person, and then he/she can truly become a virtuous person. However, there is no ultimate standard of which virtuous action can be applied for everybody, one have to learn through observation from role models. Their role models would be an example for them to learn and practice those virtuous actions. On top of that, he also believed

that happiness is the ultimate end of all human activity. In order to have happiness, the human activity has to be done rationally in accordance with virtue. By becoming or doing good, behaving with the right character, you could become a virtuous and happy person. By comparing Aristotles theory with Ethics and Peace, we see here a similarity that both by doing well or follow the ethics from a culture, one could achieve peace (happiness) for them. On the contrary, not all ethics, good actions, rational decisions can be accepted by everyone. Each ethichas its own benefit for themselves, but not for all. To a person, the rational decisions that have been made may be good for him, but may not be good to other people. In order for the person to become a virtuous person, one has to accept his/her rational judgment or action so that to produce peace. However, one will not be a virtuous person, if there are some others couldnt accept their rationality.

Divine Command Theory Divine Command Theory is a belief system based on an acceptance that the actions acted either morally good or bad are being compared with Gods command. The principle of this theory is that an action is right if only if that action is in accordance with the commandment of God and those actions is morally right if it is against with Gods commandment. One of the examples in Christianity, the bible states in Matthew 22:37-40, it was written here the two greatest commandments which hang all the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus. Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great

commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Gods commandment is an objective moral rules, it is a standard. It does not depend on how a persons perception on judging a morally good or wrong ethics. When Gods commands say a certain action is wrong, a person doesnt have the right to choose it is good because Gods commands is the ultimate command. As long as we obey Gods commandment, it makes it easier for everyone to know what is morally required for them to follow. They would feel a sense of peace, a sense of security in their lives. There are some problems with the Divine Command Theory. One it was there are too many religions, which is best to follow? Some religions are restricted to do certain things, but not others. Different people interpret Gods commandment in a different method. Is an action only can be consider good because God gave this command or is it because the action itself is already morally good which gave the reason why God commands such an action. There are so many interpretations and methods to understand Gods commandments, which will be the best way to achieve peace? We have studied different types of ethical theory which can promote peace. Achieving true peace is never easy; one has to have a great tolerance and patience to accept other cultural ethics. Not all ethics are acceptable by everyone; some of it has flaws that they cant compromise. We live in an incomplete world; everyone on this Earth has desires and needs that cannot be fulfilled. Everyone wants their rights to be able to be accepted. We humans want other people to fulfill our needs; we want other people to accept our culture, our ethics. However, it is hard for a person to just accept that easily with the contradictions between each and every one of us. There are times

we cant even fulfill our own needs. When that desire and needs cant be fulfilled, peace can never be achieved. In the end, we have to ask ourselves this question, who is the ultimate judge? Who can rightfully judge that our ethics are morally right or wrong? Who holds the authority and power to judge all those imperfect people? Everyone is not perfect;the police are not perfect; the lawyers are not perfect; our parents are not perfect; our government is not perfect; our Prime Minister is not perfect, even the theologians who came up with all these theories are not perfect. Peace cant and never will be achieved unless when there is come a time we can truly understand each other, accept one another and forgive their mistakes and flaws.True peace is achievable if only if everyone is able to tolerate one another, accepting each others culture and from there we learn to become a better person.