Apologetics

---

What is the Foundation of an Ethical Life?
By Dan Langerock

When we were growing up, our environment and family helped shape our values. As we grew older, we often departed from what that environment taught us, to the possible chagrin of those who helped form these ideas. Think back to what your ethics were at that time compared to now? How has what you believe today been influenced by those early years? How have your views changed over time?

One day, I had the opportunity to speak with a philosophy professor who taught a Business Ethics class at a major college. She was telling me how wonderful this course was, but as she was expounding, I was composing a question for her. I asked, "How do you teach Business Ethics in a society that is more and more amoral?" She was honest and said, "Before I can teach them what the course is about, I must convince them certain behaviors are wrong."

This is the foundational principle of ethics and morals: what is right and what is wrong. Then the decision must be made who will make the decision as to what is right and wrong mean. If you think back 40 years, you will see certain behaviors that were considered wrong, that today are by society's standards. I remember chafing at having to write a book report in philosophy about situation ethics. This is the principle of sculpting your morals and ethics to the situation you are in at the moment.

How do you determine what is the right and wrong things to do in any given situation? Are you a "situationist" or do you have a set of guidelines that help you decide? Do your ethics change with the mores of society or are they set in concrete? On what belief system do you base your attitudes about this subject? What changed your mind about how to react in each situation over the years?

Is your behavior based on self-interest or the welfare of others as well? If you do not have a set of morals, then the concept is of being amoral "without or against moral behavior". One cannot have a discussion about ethics until the terms are defined for those in the conversation. If one or more are amoral, then the subject of morality is moot. You must first find how each person defines morality, then what foundation they base their ethics on. Without these definitions, you can be talking past each other, seeming to have a meaningful conversation, but not really.

There can be no meaningful dialogue if there is no concept of right and wrong. It is like the professor above who had to convince her students something was wrong before she could teach the course they were interested in. It is meaningless to teach ethics if there is no concept of ethics to base it on.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE