Moral standards

The article is under revision

Introduction 

The life of an animal is different from the life of a human being.  Human beings are characterized by ratio or intellect. Human is called rational beings and all their actions are not guided by instinct but by reason. Besides its status as a rational being, human is also called a moral being. This is based on the idea that man is born good and he/she can know what good and bad are. There are seeds of goodness planted in human beings through his/her reason. Though society does not tell him, through his own reason, he/she knows that certain acts are bad. Finally, humans are not only characterized by intellect and morality, but it is also characterized by relation. He is a social being who is dependent on others for his/her survival. He/she is always about the others. It is in this last characteristic that moral standards are applied. There must be standards to be followed by all and to regulate the behavior of all. Life requires relations and relations require values which can only happen within human relations, not animal relations. Therefore actions are not purely guided by reason but by the rules or moral standards which is formulated by reason. One should know what I should do and what I should not do concerning others, to society, and to the environment.  

The meaning of Moral Standards and the Law

Moral standards are the basis for moral behavior. Something is unethical if it does not conform to a particular standard of morality. They are not theories because they are unwritten but observed and they are assumed norms of moral conduct (Articulo, 2005).  These norms are points for checking if a certain action is good or bad. The concerns of moral standards are norms, not theory which explains why certain acts are good or bad.

Moral standards are not the same as social norms but they are beyond social norms. Though social norms are codes of conduct within a particular society they are not moral standards. Moral standards are beyond borders or may be called universal and are accepted by all rational beings everywhere. The coverage of social norms is local, while the coverage of moral standards is universal. Therefore, the function of moral standards is to check if the social norms are moral or immoral. For example, certain society allows killing in the name of God or offers humans as a form of sacrificial lamb to God. Moral standards will tell us that it is immoral, though social custom declares that it is accepted. 

Based on the above understanding, it is clear that ethical standards guide individuals to act in a good manner in dealing with other humans, society, and the environment. These standards should encourage individuals to make the right decisions for their actions, and give them the courage to come forward should they notice dishonest and unethical behavior. Individuals need to follow the norms prescribed by all rational agents. Therefore, in deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good — regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad — once again, regardless of any consequences.  These moral duties are absolute and unconditional duties such as telling the truth, being honest, being fair, etc. They apply whatever consequences might follow from obeying them. An example is the order not to steal. It is our duty not to steal, though the consequences of stealing would save the life of the one who is stealing. It does not explain why one should not steal because it is the concern of moral philosophy.  

One should remember that moral standards are not the same as legal standards.  Following laws does not make one ethical.  Abortion in a certain country is legal but it does not mean that abortion is moral because it involves killing a human being.  While this practice is certainly legal, the unethical nature of it is quite clear. Another example is euthanasia. Some countries are legalizing euthanasia in which one can terminate one’s life based on mercy or other reasons. Though it is legal such action is immoral because it is considered killing. Thus Legal is following the law and may include exploiting holes in the legal system but it may contradict morality. Ethics is doing the morally right thing. Some laws may not even have any ethical connotations whatsoever. Some moral acts may be legal but they may be also illegal. The legality of an action does not guarantee that the action is morally right. Many issues in life cannot be resolved by appeal to law alone.  Thus Shaw (1999) argued that law codifies a society’s customs, ideals, norms and moral values and changes in laws undoubtedly reflect changes in what society considers right, wrong, good, and bad. However, he further emphasized that it is a mistake to see the law as sufficient to establish moral standards that should guide an individual, a profession, an organization, or society. The law cannot cover all individual and group conduct. Thus conformity to law does not necessarily mean that the act is immoral or nonconformity to the law does not mean that the act is immoral.

Sources of Moral Standards  

       

Related to the moral standards issue, one may ask a question, “Where are the sources of these standards or where do we get those standards?  If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use.  

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

Common Good

The common good principle would argue that a certain act may be considered good if it promotes the interest of the majority over individual interest. This principle originated from the utilitarianism theory. Utilitarianism emphasizes that ethical action is the one that produces the most good for the greatest majority interest and does the least harm for all who are affected (Velasquez, 2014). One should not act if it does not bring good to the majority of society, though it might violate one’s individual interest. If we apply it in the business setting, ethical corporate action is the one that produces the greatest good for the stockholders, stakeholders, and the environment. All actions are analyzed from their consequences, if the consequences are good for the majority, then such acts can be pursued.     

The Rights Doctrine

Immanuel Kant classified rights as natural and positive rights. Natural right is an inborn right while positive or statutory right is what proceeds from the will of a legislator. From the two classifications of rights, thus we have innate rights and acquired rights. Innate right is that right that belongs to everyone by nature, independent of all juridical acts of experience. Acquired right is that right which is founded upon such juridical acts. The innate right may also be called the “internal mine and thine” (meum vel tuum internum), for external rights must always be acquired (Kant, 1790). Kant argued that there is only innate right such as the birth right to freedom, while other rights originate from the right to freedom such as the right to property and other rights. For Kant, freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another; and in so far as it can coexist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original, inborn right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity. This is a right to be independent and to be coerced by external force. The limit of this freedom is the freedom of others, in the sense that the exercise of freedom is limited by the freedom of others. Emanated from freedom is the property right. It is believed that each one is free to own a property. He/she has the right to property if he/she is connected to it and if any other person should make use of it with the owner’s consent and if they do it without the consent of the owner, then they do an injury to the person or the owner. The subjective condition of the use of anything is possession of it as Immanuel Kant puts it, “Anything is “Mine” by right, or is rightfully mine when I am so connected with it, that if any other person     

should make use of it without my consent, he would do me a lesion or injury”. Thus anyone who would assert the right to a thing as his must have it as an object.  Robert Nozick (1974) as cited by Shaw (1999) argued that property rights are considered sacrosanct. It grows out of one’s basic moral right. Such right either reflects one’s initial creation or appropriation of the product, some sort of exchange or transfer between consenting individuals, or a combination of the two. However, Nozick, as quoted by Shaw argued that property rights exist before any social arrangement and are morally antecedent to any legislative decision that a state could make.      

Reading the argument of Kant and Nozick, it can be said that there are two kinds of rights and they are moral natural rights and legal rights.  Moral natural rights are possessed by man by their human nature; they are born with those rights, not conferred by the state. While legal rights are those conferred and recognized by the law. That’s why we have constitutional rights which are conferred and protected by law. They cannot be altered by the state. Statutory rights are derived from legislation which are drawn by the people’s representative such as the right to minimum wage and the right to just compensation to additional work (Articulo, 2005).      

   

Thus the ethicists agree that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. Based on such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends (Kant, cited by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2004). The exercise of any moral rights is limited to the moral rights of others, in the sense that while the bearer of the right has the right to exercise his/her freedom at the same time the same time the bearer should not violate the rights of others. Others must protect our rights and we must protect the right of others. 

The Justice Doctrine 

Plato as cited by Velasquez (1996) argued that in a society that lacks norms of justice, he argues, people inflict injustices on each other. People quickly conclude that they will be better off if everyone adheres to the norms of justice. People consequently agree to cooperate in mutual adherence to norms of justice. It is a long line of reason, we take justice as one source of moral standards, a standard of moral behavior.   All know that just action is considered to be ethical. Therefore, the principles of justice are some portion of the total principles that make up ethics. There are a lot of different ideas about justice. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed to the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally if unequally. This kind of definition refers to fair treatment. But the question here is: who does the treatment and who is to be treated? The answer to this question leads us to think of individual justice and social justice or group justice. Justice is not only fair treatment from other people toward the person but also how the person treats other people justly. Therefore justice becomes individual virtue and social virtue. A just person always treats other people justly and a just society is always treating its community members justly. As a just individual, I pay people more based on their work, based on the amount they have contributed to the organization and so the greater the amount that they contribute to an organization, the greater they receive. Just society, just government, and just organization would treat individuals justly as how the individuals treat each other. In this case, justice means giving what is due to a person fairly deserves. An act is ethical if it gives a person his proper due, otherwise, the act is unethical. Giving what is due indicates that all persons must always be treated equally. 

Velasquez (2014) argues that there are two kinds of justice and they are distributive and retributive justice. Distributive justice deals with the way how the wealth is distributed to members of society. Thus distributive justice refers to the fair distribution of society’s benefits and burdens. The benefits should be distributed according to the contribution or the burden. Someone should not expect more if he/she has not contributed anything to the production of the output.  Thus, pursuing society’s benefits but avoiding burdens is unethical because it is unfair for anyone to benefit from society’s economic pool without working hard for it. Such an idea of justice falls within what Aristotle called formal justice. Formal justice is the requirement that we should treat similar people similarly. If two persons have the same qualifications and the same amount of contribution to the organization, they should be treated equally or similarly. This kind of justice would contradict what Karl Marx meant by justice. For him, justice is to share benefits according to the needs but the burden is shared according to the capability. Retributive justice refers to the punishment given to a person who committed a crime and the punishment must be equal to the crime she/he committed. Not accepting the punishment is considered unethical because such an act would mean that the person avoids what is due him. About this idea, it is the same when someone destroys the property of other people, then it is his due to pay or replace it. When he violated the law, then it is his due to be jailed. 

There are other views of justice when we talk about society as a whole (Velasquez, 2014). When a person thinks that talents, education qualification, ability, and experience are the basis for job distribution and salary structure, would understand justice in terms of merit. This is what we have mentioned above justice means giving what is due to the person who deserves it. Such an idea is originated in the idea of Plato. Plato believes that people are classified not based on their family background but based on their talents and abilities and with such talents and abilities, those persons can play their social role. Further, when a person considers that the government should provide free education to all, would think that justice is about equality. This is rooted in the belief that all men are created equally or the same. Therefore treatment should not be based on religion, gender, race, and nationality and all should be given the same opportunity. Therefore, since all humans are the same, they should be given equal shares of benefits and burdens. Next, if a person believes that business is important to the common welfare of society and should be given a tax break, then they view justice as utility. For this group, justice means what promotes the common good or common welfare of the citizens. In this case, a business is just when it promotes the welfare of the majority of people.  

Moral Standards Based on Religion

Each religion teaches people to live according to the teachings of their religion. Muslims must follow the teaching of Mohammad which is reflected in the Qur’an. The Christian must follow the teaching of Jesus as reflected in the Bible. As many people say a true Christian walks in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus has taught people or His followers about the good life that is written in the bible. Therefore, moral standards would be that of Christ. For example, when a young man came to Jesus and asked Jesus what he should do to attain eternal life, Jesus asked him to live the Ten Commandments. But the young man said that he had fulfilled all those commandments. Jesus pointed further again that it is not yet enough and Jesus asked the young man to share his wealth with the poor and then follow Him. For Christians, it is not enough just to follow the Ten Commandments but one must share his/her wealth to the unfortunate. This is summarized under one commandment “Love your God and your neighbor as yourself”.   

Following the idea above, thus the morality of certain acts would be referred to as the teaching of Jesus Christ. It evaluates moral acts and whether they conform to God’s will or not which is reflected in the Bible. The decision has been made and we just simply follow these rules and apply them to resolve ethical problems in our daily lives. However, not all understand God’s will and may not all read the bible. In such a situation, how do people know about God’s will? People may know God’s will through the interpretation which is done by the religious authorities. Therefore, moral standards based on religion require that all must accept that the Bible is a source of God’s will and that the interpretation by their priest or religious leader is accepted as the words of God. These duties apply regardless of the consequences or motive of carrying them out because they are absolute duties.    

Natural Law and Virtue Doctrine

Humans are born good, they are given the natural knowledge and capability of knowing what is good and bad which is already built into the reason. Such a concept would emphasize the point that humans are rational beings and moral beings. This is true for all human beings. Peter Singer as cited by Arneson (1998) argued that humans have special moral privileges based on superior cognitive abilities. However, his argument has been criticized by some for it leads to the conclusion that there are different capacities among humans and so there must be different levels of moralities among humans. Besides the points of different arguments, the common point in the argument is that all humans are moral beings. All actions are commanded by reason which makes a different from the animal and therefore actions motivated by reason are necessarily good or moral. It makes a difference from animals. Such a concept leads us to categorize acts as human acts and acts of man. The human act is calculated by reason, while the act of man is calculated by instinct which is the same with animals. Therefore, an act is good if it reflects the nature of man as a rational being and a moral being and these are the first basis for moral evaluation of human acts. 

Since humans are moral beings, then definitely humans must possess moral character or virtues. Therefore human are necessarily virtuous beings. Aristotle argued that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. Virtue ethics emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give us this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.” Or virtue ethicists would advise us, to “act always as an honest person”. Honesty here is not referring to certain dealings or transactions but honesty is a character of the person. Human transactions must always be honest because honesty is a reflection of humans as moral beings, virtuous human beings. If transactions are not honest, then it is immoral because it does not reflect the character of the human being as virtuous human being. A virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility, gain favors, or simply do her duty (Athanassoulis, 2013).

Conclusion

Moral standards are containing rules that one must use as a guide in his/her actions. These rules or standards are bases for moral behavior. All acts must be originated and must be evaluated according to those standards. However, those rules or standards are not the same as the law because laws are written but moral standards are not written. Laws are proposed by Congress and approved by the President of the state. Sources of those standards are in human nature, the reason, and their own religion.

Laws and moral standards are different, not only in terms of being written or not written but also in terms of its enforcement. Laws are enforced by law enforcers, while moral standards are enforced by the individual person, his/her reason or conscience.

Laws and moral standards may not be reconcilable. What is legal may not be moral. The two may not be necessarily against each other but the two doctrines may complement one another. Moral standards may criticize laws from a moral point of view, while laws may criticize moral standards from a legal point of view. By holding two doctrines, one can be guided in decision-making. Legal decisions may not ignore the moral aspect of the decision and moral decisions may not ignore the legal aspect of such decision.     

References

1.      Articulo, C. Archimedes. 2005. Moral Philosophy. Anderson Printing Corporation: Manila.

2.      Shaw, William. 1999. Business Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing Company, International Thomson Publishing Company: Boston. 

3.      Arneson, J. Richard. 1998.  What, if, Anything, Renders All Humans Morally Equal. Oxford: Blackwell. http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/singer.pdf   

4.      Athanassoulis, Nafsika. 2013. Virtue Ethics. Keele University: United Kingdom. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/ Retrieved, December 5, 2014.

5.      Kant, Immanuel. 1790. The Science of Right, translated by Hastie, W and Blunden, Andy. 2003. http://marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/morals/ch04.htm. retrieved, December 2, 2014.

6.      Nozick, Robbert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Book, Inc: New York

7.      Velasquez, G. Manuel. 2014. Philosophy. Prentice-Hall International Inc: Singapore

8.      Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Immanuel Kant’s Moral Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ Retrieved, October 28, 2014. 

9.      Velasquez, Mannuel. 1996. Why Ethics Matters: A Defense of Ethics in Organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 6, Issue 2. ISSN 1052-150X. 0201-0222.