MODERN ETHICS – MODERN PROBLEM: CRITICISM

The tales of human circumstances, tragedy, war,  love, politics and religion has been a common venue of human history. Perhaps, problems are always included in every human life; and some problems would involve ethical issues that which could only be resolved through the existing ethical standards.

But by what means this so-called ethical standards attained its reliability? It is a fact that there are instances in our law wherein some forms of killings are not considered as crime such as the justifying and exempting circumstances in our penal law books.

Also, there is an instance whereby a professional killer or whose occupation is to kill a person is not ethically sanctioned by the society, example of which is an executioner of verdict.

So, how reliable is the ethical standard? Who determines the suspension of morality towards brutality and hostility during a war? War losers are always the victim of persecution.

To remember some incidents of our history, the deaths of innocent lives during the Vietnam War was termed by the American government as “Collateral Damage”; and in the World War II, the Nazis called the death of 6 million Jews as the “Necessary Evil”.

In my honest opinion, the term “ethics” and “morals” were just a semantic interplay for “human will”. It is natural in human behavior to maintain silence when the unpleasant event does not affect our interests or to tolerate unpleasant situations when it brings us favorable benefits. There are parents, to exemplify, who kept silent on the “immoral” acts of prostitution of their daughter on the reason of benefits caused thereby.

Now, what is ethics? What is moral? Who declares what it is? And what authority shall make it binding?

Indeed, it is a funny tale, human fears – worries – concerns crafted the term “ethics”, “morality”, “sin”, and “retribution” as a mechanism of our godly attitude.

One significant feature that man behaves like god is the maxim “vox populi, vox dei”, whereby, he invented a more or less godly concepts of ethics and morality with a more or less godly authority. Defining ethics and morality is an attempt to unmask man from his godly appearance.

Besides, ethics and morality are matters within the property of reason. Without the reason, no one can assert the reliability of the standard.

To supplement this criticism, let us observe the gesture of this statement:

Inflicting injury to a person or killing him is justified or morally acceptable when it is made IN THE NAME OF PEACE, IN THE NAME OF GOD, IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW, or IN THE NAME OF A JUST and DIGNIFIED CAUSE.

The statement herein mentioned is a clear and explicit proof of human manipulation on the so-called ethics and morality to fit his particular purpose… and to note, it has been proven a long way back to the ancient history of man.

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”