send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. A practicable Code of Universal Ethics, based on natural law, was published by HumanRightsAction.org.
There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it's better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society's government or its dominant ideology.
Universal Ethics is a set of principles which apply to all humans, whether secular or religious, independent from any particular faith. The compilation of Universal Ethics is not the base for a new religion: in particular it does not say anything about metaphysical or liturgical concepts of any kinds. That means that it does not give any explanation for the existence of the Universe (including the existence of man). It does not prescribe any particular ritual. It does not deal with the concept of God. It does not contain any myths, stories or immutable dogmas. Most importantly, Universal Ethics does not prescribe any formal changes for any existing or future creed.
Universal Ethics are a sort of Moral Constitution which is articulated as a set of specific ethical principles acceptable to all human beings. Under this ‘constitution’ all religions or secular groups can develop (or maintain) their own additional ethical principles. Kant believed that what created the problem of ethical behavior is the duality of human nature. Since humans are both sensible and intellectual, and at the same time motivated by impulse, they must be guided by rules of conduct to balance the two. He believed that everyone could decide right and wrong based on the will behind the action, rather than the action itself. In deciding whether one's actions were moral, he said it should be considered what the universal benefit would be if everyone behaved in such a fashion. For example, if everyone stole, the result would be chaos and violence. Therefore, a moral person would consider it unethical to steal. In abiding by these laws, it is possible to see how a universal code of ethics could be built up. However, men like Marx and Engels believed that there could be no universal code of ethics because all ethics and philosophy are relative to the economical situations of each individual society. Therefore, each society would create its own system of ethics based on its economic status and history, and the current system of ethics would soon give way to a new one. Thus all morals and ethics are relative. Later codes of ethics, such as that of Max Stirner, stated that the only ethics that existed were those that benefited the self. The common good and the love of one's fellow man, he claimed, were only illusory. Men who were exceptional in some way (intelligence or rank) were always the exception to moral standards. Nietzschefounded his ethical principles on this basis; he believed that everything powerful men did was defined as moral
Why Universal Ethics? (i) Conflict prevention begins with a shared moral ground. A common ethical language has to be the bride between cultures before a foundation for further dialogue can be laid. (ii) The imperative is for dialogue to continue. Shared values already exist amongst peoples in the world. Recognition and respect for diversity need not lead to relativism of values and principles (iii) The central challenge facing the world today is how we can live together with differing and conflicting values. Universal ethics is certainly not like painting by numbers but neither is it the belief held by many that no truth can be found and morality is just a matter of how you look at it.
How can Universal Ethics work? Without some kind of universal ethics there can be no way forward and no possibility of change. There are organisations and individuals working world-wide for the restoration or establishment of human rights. This may be in the grand arena of war, famine and refugees but also in smaller areas of the violation of human rights. The guidelines set out below include some suggestions for universal ethics by organisations such as UNESCO, and by Ruth Macklin based upon her experiences serving on international ethical review committees. These guidelines at the same time remain faithful to the principles of Multiculturalism. * Firstly and perhaps the most important criterion is that the greatest catalyst for change can come from within. The best way to bring about change, strategically as well as ethically, is to form alliances with people within those cultures who are seeking to bring about such changes. * Secondly actions, whether in one?s own country or abroad, which are not seen as permissible should be placed on any discussion table as the foundation for dialogue, whilst bearing in mind that there are actions and values in which legitimate differences are possible and should be tolerated. * Thirdly most if not all ethicists recognise that ethical principles are situation sensitive and that no specific rules can handle all the situations that we face. However situation sensitive rules will only be effective if we know and have on hand the basic moral principles, including quite simply concern for the welfare of others. * Respect for the autonomy of an individual although the concept of autonomy does vary within different cultures. The belief in basic justice, being fair and refusing to take unfair advantage. Benevolence, doing good and preventing harm.
Conclusion Universal ethics does not mean the imposition of one set of morals by one group on another. It means a shared way or means of reaching a consensus on norms and values that also accepts diversity. A shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In any circumstance or situation we can start by examining the present state of affairs. This should be done with the aim of gaining an understanding of other cultural differences, history and tradition, remembering that an explanation is not necessarily a justification. Next, what is the minimum that is acceptable. There has to be an acceptance that some disagreements cannot be resolved at that time. The aim is to change the present situation for the better. Once an acceptable minimum is reached, it is possible to work towards an eventual ideal state. We are all one community and we are all responsible for upholding human rights for each other. More than ever there is a need for agreement on the existence of universally held values and the content of those values. It may prove to be impossible to find one set of universal ethical principles that applies to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions but the destination is only part of the journey. The value lies in the search for principles that can be shared by all and can underpin the framework for global dialogue on ethical issues.
By: Mona Kaushal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources