Ethics is prescribed quite often. But its true intrinsic meaning seems quite elusive. Not because it is complex by itself. We make it complicated, by attaching ‘strings’. Why we do it is, simply because, our mind refuses ‘one-way-traffic’. We expect some kind of reciprocal ethics from the ‘beneficiary’ of our ethics.
Even corporate level institutions have tried out that ‘business-ethics’. It does not seem to work. We have been very clever to trade our carbon emission entitlements, refusing to be truly ethical.
Perhaps that is why a question came up, looking out for non-traditional, unconventional, unique definition of ethics. The real search is to find out what would really work.
I somehow found myself oblivious of the concept of ethics for quite a long time. But, having attempted to look at spirituality, quite intensely too, from that ‘ridiculously-early’ age, I was tempted to offer an ‘own’ definition. The global tender allows such kind of a free-bid. The best part is that there is no ‘third’ umpire, to pass a judgement. But if somebody is really interested, and finds it worth trying out, the results are truly rewarding, obviating any need for external recognition, appreciation, acknowledgement, etc.
Regards,
Psn (22 February, 2010)
The question:
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100221091942AAlsTcW
What is your own definition of ethics?
When I mean ethics I mean doing the ethical thing or not (doing the good or bad thing)
My answer:
"Own" definition is ridiculously simple.
When the finger on our left hand is injured, the fingers of the right hand do not need any ethics to extend help, nor do they complain that this left-hand-finger is unduly 'pampered' with good bandage, complete rest (as if it works hitherto!), etc. Science tells us that there is "cellular level intelligence" functioning a bit independently (that is why it fights back to survive when an insect bites, without waiting for our 'moral-sanction', even if we were on hunger-strike-unto-death).
By the same analogy, what ever rules we voluntarily adhere to, visualising this one-ness with people, and living/nonliving things around, it can be called ethics.
When we make a humble beginning to visualise, with some trust in nature, we would be blessed with the 'experience' that we were not really limited within our-OWN-body, all the time, but really we were all one and part of the universe. Once this experience dawns, no more ethics are needed. Till then, any "similar" rule with a hidden agenda is self-deceit, in the name of "ethics"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would like to differ in a small part. For one who feels connected with the rest of the univers, ethics comes naturally. But for others I feel in voluntarily submitting to obvious ethical values that are 'obviously beneficial' to humanity and the rest of the living world, over a period of time there is a greater possibility that he would develop a feeling of interconnectedness. Conversely, if one chooses to behave unethically and immorally, over a period of time he may become increasingly estranged from the universe. Thus though it may appear forced, it may be preferable to elect for an ethical behaviour.
Deepak (Feb 23rd 2010 11:25 a.m.)
Post a Comment