Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is
morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
Ethical comes from the Greek ethos "moral character" and describes a person
or behavior as right in the moral sense - truthful, fair, and honest. ... If something has
happened and you are not sure what the right thing to do is, you are having
an ethical dilemma.
Ethical character includes integrity, honesty, and trust. We often think of it as
not lying, cheating, stealing or gossiping, but it's more than that. It means doing unto
others as you would have them do unto you.
Ethics covers the following dilemmas:

how to live a good life

our rights and responsibilities

the language of right and wrong

moral decisions - what is good and bad?
Ethics is generally considered standards or good and bad, right and wrong that
are imposed by some outside group society or profession.
Example, you could have standards in the legal profession that say what lawyers
should and should not do based on the standards of their profession or in business
ethics that say what you should or should not do based on what the business
community says is right and wrong.
Morality is one’s own personal sense of right and wrong. It is imposed by
anyone, it is what you think is good and bad personally.
Rules play a critical role in achieving something close to a harmonious
society, so it is important as a social being. The presence of a set of rules
makes it clear to everyone what they can and cannot do. It avoids or limits
conflicts, and for the most part, allows for a peaceful settlement between
people with disagreements.
Anarchy
Pros: - 1. Anarchy is the search for complete freedoms
2. in essence "power for the people"; "each man for himself
3. You are finally free from the shackles of authority.
4. You can do whatever you want.
5. You are equal to everyone else, all social hierarchy has been abolished ( anarchy is the
absence of authority).
6. The country wouldn't be split between all of these ridiculous political groups.
7. No taxes to be paid.
1. There might be some disorder when it first starts, but it's the same when a beast is finally
released from their cage, they burst out and enjoy freedom, before getting on with their
lives.
2. No government services.
3. There would be no punishment for crimes.
4. Life would turn into survival of the fittest.
Mass looting, criminality, and violence would consume communities since there
would be no legal recourse for addressing injustices and disputes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
Rules are guidelines of people, the law or the way to control our
movements. In order for someone to gain control of a situation or other
people we set rules for them to follow. Social beings such as-us humans are
highly intellectual and can do whatever we want to do, yet by our freedom also
comes the cost of having to do too much we lose control. People are incredibly
social beings, and we rely heavily on our interactions with others to thrive, and even
survive, in the world. To avoid chaos in these interactions, humans create social norms.
These rules and regulations establish appropriate and acceptable ways for us to act
and respond to each other.
Social Norms Regarding Public Behavior
Shake hands when you meet someone. Make direct eye contact with the person you are
speaking with. Unless the movie theater is crowded, do not sit right next to someone. Do not
stand close enough to a stranger to touch arms or hips.
Social Norms are unwritten rules about how to behave. They provide us with an
expected idea of how to behave in a particular social group or culture. For example, we expect
students to arrive to a lesson on time and complete their work.
The law can enhance positive freedom when it prohibits negative behaviors and
promotes positive behaviors. Finally, the content of the law can be used to either promote or
suppress individual freedom.
Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as
citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the
government itself.
Rules are established to protect the weaker class in the society since they are at a
disadvantage if such regulations are broken. When rules are properly set and followed, they
provide a stable environment and human co-existence in a community, resulting in peace and
order.
Laws ensure victims of crime receive justice and criminals receive the relevant
penalty for their wrong-doing. The end goal is to rehabilitate criminals so they are prepared to
integrate back into mainstream society and to reduce the overall rate of reoffending, breaking
the destructive cycle of crime.
Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they
believe are morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects
they believe are morally good and morally bad. ... Non-moral standards refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical considerations.
While morals tend to be driven by personal beliefs and values, there are
certainly some common morals that most people agree on, such as:








Always tell the truth.
Do not destroy property.
Have courage.
Keep your promises.
Do not cheat.
Treat others as you want to be treated.
Do not judge.
Be dependable.
Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones? It is important
to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our
beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some
values do have moral implications, while others don't.
It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and
that our beliefs are deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this
reason, some values do have moral implications, while others don’t. Let us
consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in traditional Muslim
communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women have
to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the
woman’s body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of
the world, especially in Western societies, most people don’t mind if women
barely cover their bodies. As a matter of fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty
glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely daring dress. The
point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who wear
hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.
Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards.
What is a matter of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral
value) in one culture may be a matter of moral significance in another.
Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on
others, which may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this
happens, as we may already know, violence and crime may ensue, such as
religious violence and ethnic cleansing.
How can we address this cultural conundrum?
This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral
standards (that is, of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a
non-moral issue―thus, a matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious
and insignificant for some people, but understanding the difference between the
two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once we have distinguished
moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the principles
and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that
may guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are
non-moral, we will be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of
cultural reductionism (that is, taking complex cultural issues as simple and
homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard
on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral (that is, a matter of
taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such
standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may
have the right to force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able
to find a common moral ground, such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill,
harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.
Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?
Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of
actions believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what
we believed to be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote
“the good”, that is, the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and
the environment. Moral standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in
terms of rights and obligations.
According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms
and values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the
one hand, norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors.
For example, we may say “We are always under the obligation to fulfill our
promises” or “It is always believed that killing innocent people is absolutely
wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring beliefs or
statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say
“Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.
According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1)
moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the
environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or changed
by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on the adequacy of
the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a law to back up our
moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral standards are overriding,
that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations, especially of self-interest; 4)
moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence, moral standards are fair and just; and 5)
moral standards are associated with special emotions (such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such
as right, wrong, good, and bad).
Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and
right or wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards
of etiquette by which we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the
law by which we judge something as legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics
by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we should not confuse
morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.
As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence,
a scrupulous observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral
person. Violation of said standards also does not pose any threat to human wellbeing.
Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a
moral standard says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a nonmoral standard says “Don’t text while driving” or “Don’t talk while the
mouth is full”.
Conflicting Absolutism – This view recognizes that all moral laws are absolute and
must be followed, but also acknowledges that sometimes they are in conflict. When that
happens, the believer should choose the lesser of two evils. However, since he did
break one of the laws, he should beg for forgiveness for that sin.
This school has a merit in that it recognizes moral conflict, but is self-defeating in its
very nature. Let me explain by using a biblical illustration. For example, Rahab lied to
the king’s soldiers about the whereabouts of the spies, in order to save them and her
family when the Israelites eventually attacks. Under conflicting absolutism, she avoided
the greater evil of giving up the spies to die, but sinned by committing the lesser evil of
lying, for which she has to ask for forgiveness. However, the condition for forgiveness is
repentance, which means changing her mind about her sin and not committing it again.
But if the situation repeats itself, she would not be changing her course of action and
betray the spies, which means she could never really repent! The best she could do is
choose the lesser of two evils, which means she is obligated to lie to protect the spies’
lives. There is therefore a moral duty to sin! Conflicting absolutism thus does not work in
practice and is self-defeating.
3. Graded Absolutism – This last view, also known as biblical situation ethics, states
that all moral laws are not equal but follow a hierarchy. When there is a conflict, the
Christian should follow the higher law. The difference from conflicting absolutism is that
in breaking the lower law, the person is not held responsible when there is no other
choice.
Let me clarify with a trivial example. All motor vehicles should follow the traffic lights to
ensure safety for all. However, when an ambulance is responding to an emergency, it
can run through red lights without being charged, because it has a higher
responsibility of saving lives. The problem with graded absolutism is that it seems too
much like situation ethics. Again using Rahab’s example, under graded absolutism lying
in and of itself is wrong, but lying to save lives is not. Some might say this is just
depending on the situation. But it is not. It depends on the laws. It is not the same as
saying “if the intention is good”, because intentions are relative, whereas the higher
laws are absolute.
The biblical basis is in Mt 12: 3-5 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when
he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his
companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do, but only for
the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple
desecrate the day and yet are innocent? The Sabbath laws clearly state that it was not
lawful for David to eat the consecrated bread, or for the priests to work, yet they are
innocent, because of the higher law to save lives and to serve God.
Of the three systems, personally I think graded absolutism fits the biblical evidence the
best. There is still a challenge in the application, because the hierarchy is not spelled
out in detail and left to wisdom. Ethical standards should not change with time and
culture, because ultimately they are based on God’s character. It’s our understanding of
them that may change, hopefully for the better.
Conflicting Absolutism (CA)
Another way to deal with moral dilemmas is to admit that they do exist and try to deal
with them head-on. This is the position of the conflicting absolutist. This position is held
by theologians such as Helmut Thielicke, John Warwick Montgomery, J.I. Packer, and
E.J. Carnell. This position is also known as ideal absolutism, as it believes that ideally
God’s laws do not conflict, but in this fallen world there are times when they do. They
also conclude that part of the conflict is due to a lack of understanding on our part. This
fallen world creates ambiguity.
This position is probably the easiest to explain. When confronted with a moral dilemma,
such as the midwives lying to protect the children or Rahab lying to protect the spies
(see Joshua 2:1), what we must do is choose the lesser of two evils. In these two
instances lying is the lesser sin than failing to protect the life of your neighbor. In these
situations what we must do is admit that we had done wrong, repent, and ask God for
forgiveness. In both of these situations, God praised the women, not for their lying, but
for their faith and doing the best they could in such a terrible situation.
In the case of the mother with a tumor (see previous posts), it would be a greater sin to let
the mother die without any attempt to save them both since we never know for certain if
the child will die. Though the chance of losing the child may be 99.9%, to not attempt to
save the mother would be the greater sin. If the child dies, we must then ask for
forgiveness.