DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

My Ethics

 

I.

 

A While ago I had th opportunity to take some online quizzes to help me better understand my personal ethical framework. Overall, my results on the ethics quizzes did not surprise me (though I do think they make it easier for me to put my vies into words) and seem to do little more than reestablish that I fall on the left side of the political spectrum. The results of the “Moral Foundation Questionnaire” say that I find fairness and harm to be the most important factors in morality, as do most liberals. I placed the least importance on purity; I find that as a foundation it does more harm than good. The “Everyday Moral Scenario” quiz shows I am more liberal than most liberals.

The two extra quizzes I chose to take were the “Justice Questionnaire” and “Disgust Scale”. The first shows that I place importance on basic needs at minimum and equality. I take this to mean that I feel that every person deserves the respect that comes with the title of ‘human being’, and I also feel that as a person you should be able to live with dignity. I took the second quiz because I watched a TED Talk last year on how levels of disgust can predict political viewpoints, such as how many conservatives fight LGBT rights partially because they think anal sex is “icky” (Pizarro, 2012). As could be expected, I had low levels of disgust and fit in with most liberals.

 

II.

 

The ethical framework I initially researched was the Fairness or Justice Approach because fairness and equality were reoccurring themes in my ethical quiz results; however, through my search process, it turned more specifically into a study of Egalitarianism. “An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect” (Arneson, 2013)[1]. Opponents of egalitarianism, such as Gary Hull, Ph. D (2000) of the Ayn Rand Institute, claim that making everyone equal by default suppress the achievers and creators a country depends on economically. This, however, is a misconception. Equality does not involve pulling people down from the top, but raising people up from the bottom. Furthermore, inequality, and its subsequent discrimination, undermines equality of opportunity, that very American ideal libertarians prize and egalitarians seek (Segal, 2012)[2].

            So how would this apply to my personal and professional lives? For example, suppose I am working at a library and a homeless person who has obviously not showered in several days needs my help finding online want ads. He probably smells awful and I probably want to get away, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t serve them as well as a person who has showered and needs information on applying to Ivy League schools. Another example: A While ago, my cousin and her husband were freaking out because they thought their daughter might want to have sex with her boyfriend. All the talk around it made it seem as though their daughter was a piece of property that needed protection and the boyfriend some sort of raping pedophile rather than two people capable of making their own decisions. I wish I had spoken my mind that day.

 

References


[1] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an online encyclopedia updated regularly by the philosophy department at Stanford University. This article is written to inform people about Egalitarianism and was peer-reviewed before publication.

[2] Shlomi Segall is a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The article was peer-reviewed, well cited, published in 2012, is relevant to egalitarianism, and exists to inform.

 

10 November 2013

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.