For Your Information #4: Ethics in my Generation

For Your Information #4: Ethics in my Generation

My last post was on immigration, and I posted an edited version of a paper I wrote for a class. I rather liked this idea, as it actually gives my papers more meaning than to just be turned into one teacher once and be forgotten. So, I now present to you my paper on my personal ethical code. This paper really seeks to question how we do ethics in the digital age.

Statement on Personal Ethics Code

To be frank, I feel a slight association with the character Gordon from the movie Billy Madison. Gordon and the titular Billy find themselves competing for the right to take over the company Billy’s dad owns. During the competition described as an academic decathlon, Gordon is asked to define modern business ethics in light of recent insider trading and loan scandals. After rambling several incoherent introductions to his answer, he pulls out a gun and demands for another question. Gordon reacts in this way because he is unable to even attempt a definition of business ethics. While this is supposed to be comical moment, it does accurately portray the level of understanding many have of ethics (Billy Madison 1995).

Personal codes of ethics are vital to a person’s life. One of my core values is the need to understand why I believe something and ultimately why that belief leads me into action. In light of last weeks lecture, and in consideration of further research, I would describe myself as an unethical person. This statement does not mean that I am corrupt, but that I do not view myself, as I am today, as a subscriber to a specific ethical code, therein making me unethical. I believe that I have subscribed to the modern epidemic of what I will Millennial Ethics (ME). ME is most noted by the ability of its practitioners to invoke the axioms of any other ethical code when it is convenient to do so. ME provides an opportunity for its practitioners to hold beliefs and make decisions on things we know little to nothing about. Those of us with ME often unwittingly refute the principles of a specific code in one discussion, but then appeal to its arguments in another discussion. To further explore ME this paper will discuss the context in which ME was born, the ways in which it varies from the Pluralistic Theory of Value (PTV), and explore whether or not ME is a legitimate ethical code to subscribe to or not.

My Persuasion and Attitude class last semester discussed the issue of how modern Americans formulate opinions and beliefs. I believe that experience can help inform this discussion on ethics. We learned that the number of competing messages a single person encounters in any given day is beyond measurable. With this understanding, we identified our tendency to formulate poorly researched or supported opinions. Some may claim that it is necessary to form these unsupported opinions due to the increasing demand for awareness and our inability to adequately research 1000s of topics. However, the fact remains, we posses an immeasurable amount of beliefs that we are unable to fully support. I believe this climate has enabled the proliferation of ME.

If ME provides its subscribers with the opportunity to make decisions based on bits and pieces of other ethical codes, how does it vary from PTV? In short, it is about intent and self-awareness. PTV provides the opportunity to reflect on competing values, and this opportunity accounts for the ability of individuals with PTV to invoke the precepts of different codes at different times. I argue that this contains a certain level of understanding and awareness of both ethical codes, and oneself. ME is contrastingly different as it facilitates decision making and the formation of opinions without identifying the competing values. To summarize, PTV understands that any given opinion or decision will be made in light of competing values, and ME provides its practitioners with the ability to hold opinions and make decisions without consideration of existing values.

I would argue that ME is not a legitimate or ethical standard. In class we defined ethics as a rational process founded on principles. Therefore, ethics begin when elements within a moral system conflict, and they are not so much the study of right and wrong, but a look at conflict between equally compelling values. My previous definition of ME states that individuals with ME do not need to reflect on the conflict of values. People with ME may not know this, but they value having an opinion more than having an opinion they understand. The conservative versus liberal argument is a popular one on campus, and I am familiar with both my tendency and the tendency of others to cling to party lines on any given topic. There is a small blog on campus called the Conservative Voice. The blog serves as an article distribution and comment board. People on this board often establish what party they identify with and then rarely ever express views that differ from the platform of said party. I have seen many participate in discussions on topics they have no understanding in, myself included, and I contribute this to the value that it is more important to have an opinion than to have an informed opinion. Since ME does not provide specific measures in belief formation or decision making, and since it does not demand an understanding of competing values, I would argue that ME is not a legitimate ethical code.

I started this paper by saying that I do not think I am an ethical person, and I defended that statement by identifying my ME code. However, at this point, I reject the ME as a legitimate code and believe that my self-awareness and gained understanding of competing values has me on the road towards PVT. This assignment has helped me identify my personal ethics and the awareness of the different codes has provided me with the challenge to hold myself to a higher standard.