There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.
Debate Rounds (4)
Even though the world is very mixed and different place, there have to have certain modern standards that are the same throughout the world no matter what. One reason is because after all, everyone is human, and human have to have to be similar with one another in at least one standard or another. Another is that ethics is something that is taught with a clear distinction of what is right or wrong. In different societies and cultures, even though they may have different ethical rules, there are certain ones that transcend that, for example, the ramification of murder, wither or not it done for a clear and justified rational reason.
Basically, the basic definition of ethics is a set of rules that help to set one"s judgment on wither something is wrong or right. It comes from the Greek and Latin word meaning moral. In order to be moral, societies have to create and invent laws to follow by, and have people who understand them as not all laws apply for that certain situation.
There are many ethical codes for people such as police officers, soldiers, martial arts, etc. What ethics are used in one subject may not help or be useful in another situation. The need to know hen we should adapt our ethics to a situation can be crucial to one's survival.
Ethics may not have a straight set of principles that people have to follow, but one would know what would be wrong or right to do certain things at a certain situation. For example, everyone would be wrong to murder a human being in almost all situations. Another one would be stealing from another in the most basic moral views, it would be wrong. For that it does not matter how much a person grows and maturities, it will still be wrong. People will learn not to commit murder or steal from another at a very early age, and it will stick with them for the rest of their lives.
Basically ethics is very objective; it all depends on their personal views. What one views to be right does not mean its right. Just as long as one view something is right, and can justify it with an answer that it means it can be right. There is no straight right or wrong answers in ethics, but there are just right or wrong answers that are all depended on different situations.
Sometimes one can go against the culture just because they know what is ethically wrong and right. For example, is it right or wrong to do something just because it is part of a society or culture? One has to follow their own judgment on what is right and what is wrong. If their own judgment and beliefs proves to be right for them, then there is a right answer in ethics. Take a look at the fantasy character Drizzt Do"Urden, created and written by the fantasy author R. A. Salvatore, who realized at an early age that there were something ethical wrong with the culture that he came from and belonged to. His race, the Dark Elves, is a race that is willing to kill others, even the one"s family in order to get ahead, and be in favor of their spider God, Lolth. Whatever Lolth says and wants is correct. But for Drizzt, mainly through the teachings of his father , who he is raised by realizes that their culture was wrong, and decided to give up that lifestyle and culture. He escaped that culture, and decided to something that no Dark Elf ever has done, to escape that culture of hate and murder. Also he is one of those characters that will always stick and live by his ethical and moral code to do the right thing no matter what the situation is. For him there will always be an ethically wrong or right answer to everything he will ever do, even if he gets tempted by others to be unethical, he will always try to still to his moral principles. This is what Drizzt is known for. It is the reason that makes him one of the most well known and popular fantasy characters of all time. For being moral and ethical character, it is the reason that he is my favorite fantasy character of all time. For being moral and ethical character, it is the reason that he is my favorite fantasy character of all time.
Now Otto Octavious is a lot different than Peter Parker when it comes to crime fighting. Otto uses technology just like Peter does, but the gadgets he uses are completely different. Otto has no problem with using his technology to spy on people all over New York City to stop crime. These cameras, called spider-bots look out for crime or any signs of danger within New York. He decides which crimes would be deemed worth by what the disaster or crime is happening and whether a super villain is committing the crime or not. So if Shocker was attacking New York he would step in, but if it was a plain old mugging he would swing on past it. What separates Otto Octavious from Peter Parker is that Otto is willing to kill criminals to stop crimes fro happening again. He is ruthless to his enemies and criminals and if he believes that killing a criminal would make New York safer then he would do it.
What does this have to do with this debate? It's that these two characters chose different methods in crime fighting. They both decided what behavior would be acceptable to them to do what is necessary . Peter believed that it is wrong to kill criminals where Otto decides to use it as a way to keep the city safe. Otto decides to ignore some crimes to spend more time facing super powered or dangerous criminals while Peter fights any crime that happens on his watch. Peter and Otto use different methods to fight crime which is sometimes are considered acceptable or unacceptable to the people of New York, the Avengers, etc. It does not matter, the main thing is that they chose what their ethical code will be for fighting crime and did not need (or did not listen to) someone to tell the spider-men what is right or wrong for them; they decided on it on their own because they trust themselves to make the right decision.
Being on a fair playing ground is the reason why many people grab on and connect with Batman or any heroes in the Watchmen so much more as they are just regular human beings fighting crime with no super powers to his own whatsoever. It makes him more connectable on a human and emotional level.
While dealing with ethics, people need to think about and respect others. They need to think about if the method in solving the problem justifies the end result or not. Does the superhero like Otto want to start acting like the villains just to deal out some justice?
Then if there is no right or wrong, what keeps society from not falling into chaos? What keeps the balance in people"s mind that keeps them on the straight and narrow path? It is easier to go and live a life of crimes, and people do that, but how we don"t see more people turning into criminals? Are there no grounds of difference between what is right and what is wrong?
If a society like the Islam religion belief in women has second class citizens is that correct? But even though today in this day and age in the 21st century to many other society that would seem totally wrong and backwards way of thinking as women have gained so much in the last hundred years to get all their rights to where they are today.
So to a certain degree, society in a way decides on what are right and what are wrong. This does not have to mean that it has to been written into as a law. If one chose to deviate from the norms, then he or she becomes an outcast, and seen as different.
By being a superhero, one already has decided to become an outcast of society, so the rules and laws don"t and should not really apply to them. So in a sense by being an outcast of society, everything they do is wrong and unethical, which makes them not valid, and not have to play by the rules of society.
So by being a vigilante does it make super heroes criminals in the bigger picture? If it does then by that reasoning, they are all wrong in their actions no matter what ethical method they take in fighting the criminals. It is the reason why you see in some comics there is so much uprising against masked heroes.
There are many books, movies, and comics that show people going against a ethical code that they were brought up in and choosing to turn its back on that code to do what they believe is good, for money, save a loved one, etc. In Star Wars Anakin Skywalker turned to the dark side and betrayed the jedi order to save his wife. I will take it even further and say that before he turned to the dark side he broke many rules of the order to save others knowing full well that he shouldn't. He let his anger and pride get the best of him; leading to the deaths of a tusken raider village, the lost of his arm, but also a large sum of his power came from his anger. He refused to let go of his attachments to his mother and married Padme Amidala which forbidden for jedi to do. Anakin knew what he did went against the jedi code but he chose not to let that stop him from doing as he please.
They are also instances where people without any moral judgment do what is considered the right option. In the movie, The Dark Knight, the Joker has bombs on two boats. One boat is full of civilians and the other boat is full of convicts. All the people both of the boat could have blew the other boat up but they chose not to. Realizing that you have a choice, even if it means pain or death, is more powerful than a moral code because you are in control of your actions and not by a code that tells you how you should act.
In Star Wars, even though Anakin Skywalker did all those horrible and unethical acts, it gives an example to others not to commit those acts of crime. For example, his son, Luke, by knowing what others who committed acts of evil, like his father, he valued never to be act likes his father ever in his life. He knew what was ethically wrong, and what is ethically right. At the end by knowing and acting like an ethical person, it even turn around his father, Anakin in doing the right deed at the end to become a more ethical and honorable individual.
For Drizzt, he knew what is right or wrong by the people, the companions that he hanged around with as a method knowing his moral compass will always be in the right direction no matter where his adventures take him down on his journey of adventures.
So in order to be considered morally ethical, people try to hang around people that are similar in style, beliefs, and the such with them, so at least they know what they are doing is morally right for themselves, and no one else.
In the Robin Hood stories, Robin steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The poor sees him and his merry men as heroes, while the rich sees Robin and the merry men as terrorists and villains. Ethics can be used to control others by those who make them. Those that try to make there own way may be seen as bad by the powers that be and hunted down. History has shown many instances of this happening such as the civil rights movement, Salem witch trials, the Holocaust. All of these have shown what could happen when ethics are twisted to make outsides or different ways of thinking seen as wrong.
One way this is shown is in the video game series Assassin's Creed. There are two factions, the Assassins and the Templars. The Templars believe that world peace can be achieved through order and controlling the world. By setting up there own rules, telling people what should be done for them and manipulating history as they see fit. The Assassin's believe in freewill, making your own choices, and not disturbing the flow of history and humanity unless it is in secret. This may lead to humanity making a lot of mistakes, but to the Assassins it is worth it if it means people are in control of their lives and not being controlled by others.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.