ETHICS: why or when is something good?

Jerico Bonzon Since the time our minds started to learn how to talk and follow instructions, our parents, being our first teachers, taught us to do things the way they believe it to be right. Like a computer programmed to do a certain task, we ask no questions as to whether or not what we are doing is good or bad, were just told that its good and we of course, either believe them or are forced to comply. Like an empty hard drive, our minds started to collect and store each action we learned and did and labeled some as right as opposed to those in which we were reprimanded for as wrong or bad. And as we grew older, this vast collection of actions becomes more and more sophisticated, with the newer experiences being harder to categorize as good or bad. We keep on referring to this vast collection in which case it defines why we act in certain ways that we do and this is what we I would like to call our own personal ethics. Ethics, also known as the moral philosophy, studies how humans act and set a standard into which they can use to categorize their acts as good or bad. Its the branch of Philosophy that is concerned in explaining and defining how things ought to be good, or bad. There are a lot of theories concerned regarding the definition of goodness and badness of an act and I would present some that I believe would drive to the conclusion of my own personal stand regarding the topic at hand. Ethical Relativism states that there is no absolute moral principle that can be applied to all the people in the world. This can be attributed to the existence of different cultures and religion in different countries, which also happens to carry with them different traditions, and customs that is unique to others. I myself somehow stand by this theory. Take for example Filipinos way of paying respect by saying po and opo, pag-mamano and the Muslim womens way of keeping their hairs concealed to the eyes of men. This are all unique to each culture/religion and not doing so would be bad to them, but this are just some of those which cannot be applied to all. On the other hand however, letting others speak (in an argument/conversations), letting others live (as opposed to stabbing people and killing them as pleased), saving someone from danger/evil are just some of the universal actions that can be, as I think they are, labeled as universal moral

principles that can be applied to all. That is why I think Ethical relativism is not all that acceptable. Hedonism meanwhile believes that pleasure is the norm of morality. This can be easily disproved, as excessive pleasure cannot at all be all pleasure. Too much eating will in the end cause you stomach pains, too much sex will as well leave you dehydrated swollen, in pain and given the limitations of the human body, you just cant do it 24/7 straight. Depriving yourself from pleasure on the other hand is not that all good as well. Pleasure is not bad, and abstaining from it is not good either. But for Stoicists indifference to pleasure is the norm of morality. This includes exemplary patience, self-sacrifice and long-suffering attitude. While I dont agree to this theory, its for you to decide. If it is not black or white, then it must be gray, right? Epicureanism believes moderation of pleasure is the moral norm. According to them, anything in excess is bad and everything should be consumed moderately. If its not black or white, maybe its not grey as well. Meanwhile, utilitarianism believes that the if an action proves to promote happiness, then it is good, otherwise it is bad, and I think a lot of people have this kind of principle, which is why basketball courts are excessively charged by politicians (of course some of it go straight to their pockets). For utilitarianists, since a lot can benefit for the said project, then it is good, disregarding the fact that it was actually a way of corruption. Given all these theories I presented, I think I would say that something is good when it provides benefits and provides happiness to the doer and his associates (if in case it is a collective action) without doing harm/danger/damage to other people, the government, the environment and the animal life consciously. This is based from the utilitarian ideology, taking into consideration the real motive of the doer. If the doer consciously wants to take advantage of an act that is good (will benefit him or a lot of people) while doing damage to other beings of this world, then it should be labeled as bad or wrong. Like I said in my previous example, establishing a basketball court for a certain barangay would make most of the people around it happy as this court can function as a recreational center wherein which the members of the community can all benefit. This is good if viewed that way, but behind the smiles lies the real truth of the government officer who just want to make the said project a means for corruption thus making the situation bad or wrong since he tends to deceive the people and steal their hard-earned taxes away from them.