The development of human society is regulated by various rules, laws, and norms. Ethics can be viewed as one of those norms, irrespective of the fact whether it is ethics of daily communication with people or business ethics. On the whole, ethics can be defined as “the study of right and wrong and of the morality of the choices individuals make” (Pride, 2008, Ch. 2). My ethics is also an attempt to act according to the social norms, distinguish right from wrong, and act according to the former.
Accordingly, my philosophy of ethics is that a person should live by the ideals of the common good. More specifically, it is difficult to argue, for instance, that a human being does not want to be humiliated, offended, or betrayed. So, my philosophy is that being ethical means not doing the listed things to others. Putting myself in the place of people that might feel offended or uncomfortable about some of my actions or words makes me understand what I would not like to face. So, being ethical for me is also not doing to people what you do not want them to do to you. On the whole, I can characterize my ethical philosophy as a partly religious and a partly rational set of beliefs.
Naturally, the beliefs that people express are not innate, and my personal ethical philosophy has also been subjected to numerous influences. The latter was conditioned by my personal experiences, as well as by scholarly philosophical views of reputable thinkers like Kant or Kohlberg (Liuzzo, 2010, Ch. 2). Broadly speaking, my ethical philosophy can be viewed as the synthesis of the basis of ethical ideas and my experiences concerning the practical manifestations of the latter.
Drawing from this, my ethical philosophy can be compared and analyzed through the views of Bentham, Kant, and Kohlberg (Liuzzo, 2010, Ch. 2). At once, it is necessary to say that my personal ethical philosophy displays the slightest similarities with the utilitarian ideas by Bentham. The point that an action is ethical if it benefits the majority of people whom it concerns is considered unacceptable to me because if one speaks about the majority that benefits from an action, there is also an implicit idea of the minority that suffers from it (Liuzzo, 2010, Ch. 2). So, although Bentham’s views are rather rationale, I think that such an approach is inapplicable for developing an ethical personality.
Moving further, I can find more similarities in my philosophy with the categorical imperative by Kant (Liuzzo, 2010, Ch. 2). According to this idea, human beings have an innate right to fair treatment, equality, justice, etc. So, every person should act to respect those rights whatever the cost is. I consider this view to be opposite to utilitarianism because it respects all people, not the majority that can benefit from an action. So, I think that my philosophy is rather close to Kant’s ideas.
Finally, addressing the views by Kohlberg, I agree that my philosophy has gone through those three stages of moral development to become as firm as it is now (Liuzzo, 2010, Ch. 2). Considering pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional stages, I can find similarities with how my philosophy developed. Accordingly, I relate my ethical views to the theory by Kohlberg as well.
So, the conclusion is that my ethical philosophy is based on doing only good to other people and complying with socially acceptable norms of behavior. Consideration of scholarly views reveals numerous similarities and differences, as well as points of agreement and disagreement, which my philosophy displays about the views of reputable philosophers.
Works Cited
Liuzzo, Anthony L. Essentials of Business Law, 7th Edition, McGraw Hill Publishing, 2010. Print.
Pride, William. Business. Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.