Ethics
The class started with a mono act from our beloved Raji mam (Name changed for anonymity :)). It was a unique way of starting the topic. Whenever I think of it, there is no end to the laughter, especially when i recall the gestures by her when the boy said 'Mam, HoD wants to meet you' :D. Alright, Now to the topic.
That was an ethics test demo for everyone in the class. There was quite a bit of discussions in her absence. There was only one person who said he did not discuss. Failed. Utterly failed. The whole class has failed in ethics? These are not children who do not know what ethics is, but a class with average work experience of 11.5 years.
What is happening?
Is ethics a word of the past, replaced by law?
Have we compartmentalized ethics?
Is that ethics is no more binary, but evolved like 50 shades of ethics :).
Ethics has a clear definition but usually finds her meaning in the hands of interpreters and his convenience. Lets take an example of 'lie'. Not an apt word in the world of ethics until you read the Thirukural below:-
Let consider another example:-
Murder.
Do you think this act as ethical?
If not, then why is the judiciary interested in the circumstances of murder?
If yes, then expect Hitler to file a petition, he surely has justification to mop up one third of world population.
So, am I driving the point that ethics is pointless? Its a big NO, we as human race cannot survive and evolve in the absence of ethics.
Survival on our planet might demand just one or a couple of particular skills. But prevalence demands multifaceted skills that is ever changing and expanding. For e.g. Fish must know to swim to survive while camels cant, but they can live with scanty water.
With humans you see a contrast that while some were hunters, some were gatherers, some were farmers, some climbers and some were fishermen and some were care takers. This primitive list, over the period has grown vast.
Unlike many other species lining up for extinction on earth, the human population is ever increasing in spite of epidemics such as The Plague of Athen or the recent H1N1. Not to mention the consistent natural calamities that call upon us every day. Our prevalence to this day can be attributed to nothing but someone/group among us possessing the necessary skill to tackle/overcome the challenge posed throughout the history of mankind.
Different skills in the same species is unique but also important for its prevalence. 'Survival of the fittest' - If fittest here means aggressive and violent, then the human race would be nothing but hunters. On the other hand, if fittest means loving and selfless, that is the glue to be united internally and challenge the external predators.
The point I am driving here is, moral principles are key to any culture, society, species to sustain existence. Only these moral principles ensure harmony among people and groups in spite of different skills they posses. Ethics are nothing but these moral principles that we practice as individuals and societies.
So, we could see that practicing ethics is not about whether or not, but about high or low. You might find a person/group who is without money, education, house, family, food etc... and they would admit to not having that. But it is very difficult and in fact impossible to meet a person who would admit that he his without ethics, probably that is why we even have words such as ethical hacking ;).
Take away:-
Need to be aware of this situation, a regular shot of such ethics demo test would make us ponder over and do some kind of dusting :).
Thanks
K Lakshmanan.
That was an ethics test demo for everyone in the class. There was quite a bit of discussions in her absence. There was only one person who said he did not discuss. Failed. Utterly failed. The whole class has failed in ethics? These are not children who do not know what ethics is, but a class with average work experience of 11.5 years.
What is happening?
Is ethics a word of the past, replaced by law?
Have we compartmentalized ethics?
Is that ethics is no more binary, but evolved like 50 shades of ethics :).
Ethics has a clear definition but usually finds her meaning in the hands of interpreters and his convenience. Lets take an example of 'lie'. Not an apt word in the world of ethics until you read the Thirukural below:-
Let consider another example:-
Murder.
Do you think this act as ethical?
If not, then why is the judiciary interested in the circumstances of murder?
If yes, then expect Hitler to file a petition, he surely has justification to mop up one third of world population.
So, am I driving the point that ethics is pointless? Its a big NO, we as human race cannot survive and evolve in the absence of ethics.
Survival on our planet might demand just one or a couple of particular skills. But prevalence demands multifaceted skills that is ever changing and expanding. For e.g. Fish must know to swim to survive while camels cant, but they can live with scanty water.
With humans you see a contrast that while some were hunters, some were gatherers, some were farmers, some climbers and some were fishermen and some were care takers. This primitive list, over the period has grown vast.
Unlike many other species lining up for extinction on earth, the human population is ever increasing in spite of epidemics such as The Plague of Athen or the recent H1N1. Not to mention the consistent natural calamities that call upon us every day. Our prevalence to this day can be attributed to nothing but someone/group among us possessing the necessary skill to tackle/overcome the challenge posed throughout the history of mankind.
Different skills in the same species is unique but also important for its prevalence. 'Survival of the fittest' - If fittest here means aggressive and violent, then the human race would be nothing but hunters. On the other hand, if fittest means loving and selfless, that is the glue to be united internally and challenge the external predators.
The point I am driving here is, moral principles are key to any culture, society, species to sustain existence. Only these moral principles ensure harmony among people and groups in spite of different skills they posses. Ethics are nothing but these moral principles that we practice as individuals and societies.
So, we could see that practicing ethics is not about whether or not, but about high or low. You might find a person/group who is without money, education, house, family, food etc... and they would admit to not having that. But it is very difficult and in fact impossible to meet a person who would admit that he his without ethics, probably that is why we even have words such as ethical hacking ;).
Take away:-
Need to be aware of this situation, a regular shot of such ethics demo test would make us ponder over and do some kind of dusting :).
Thanks
K Lakshmanan.
Hi Lakshman. Glad your perception of the "tough to work with" person changed. When learnings are applied, nothing like it. Interesting parallel to Bolt. Super punch "Explore to understand, assume to stay ignorant." I still remember our heated discussion during Ethics class :-) Clearly shows it is your pet topic - very interesting read It was great having you in class - you made it lively. All the very best !
ReplyDelete