In a discussion on ethics, it must first be established how something is determined

to be ethical or not. Ethics is the study of morality, what is right and what is wrong and

how morals are determined and where they come from. The first assignment we had in

this course was to explain where our values came from. The fact is, the source of all right

and wrong is God. The laws of God are true and enforce on all mankind, regardless of

whether man knows about, understands them or believes in them. Think of it this way.

Within the last 200 years or so, mankind has just begun to unravel the mysteries of

nature, science and physics. There is much we have yet to learn and quite possibly much

that we now think we understand that could at some point in the future be proven

incorrect. However, just because man has not yet discovered why a natural phenomenon

occurs or has a false understanding of why a phenomenon occurs, does not mean that the

universe is not still governed by true and correct laws. Nature is governed by laws,

whether we as a species have discovered or even understand them. The same holds true

with right and wrong and the laws of God. There are many mysteries of God that man

has yet to learn and many people who misinterpret the laws of God or do not believe

them. This however does not change the laws of God. Like the laws of physics, the laws

of God are unchangeable. So, what are the laws of God? Anciently, God have his

foundational laws to Moses on Mount Sinai. These 10 basic laws were designed to have

man remember God, to serve him and honor him. They also spelled out how men should

treat one another. When Jesus can to earth he refined those laws and took them to a

higher level. He said that the first great commandment was to love the Lord with all our

might, mind and strength. The second commandment was like unto it, in that we should

love our neighbor as ourselves. So, what do these two commandments mean? If a man
loves God, he would honor the Sabbath, refrain from blaspheme or taking the Lords name

in vain. If a man loves his neighbor and his God, he would not steal, kill, lie, cheat on

spouses, cheat or defraud ones employer, friends, or associates.

Once one has a foundational understanding of where morals stem from, one can

start to examine the theories of ethics presented in the background material. The theory

of Consequentialism states that one should make decisions based on the consequences of

the action. But, the question that must be asked is, the consequences to whom? Are we

concerned only about the consequences to ourselves? If so, then would it be ethical to

steal from someone if you know you would never be caught? The consequences to you

would be positive in that you gained something you wanted without having to pay for it,

either monetarily or legally. Then, according to the general interpretation of

consequential ethics, it would be ethical. However, if we expand the definition to include

others as well as us, then we could say that such an action would not be ethical because

the owner of the objects being stolen would lose the use of his object without being

compensated in any form. This would not be a positive consequence to that person. The

latter interpretation is Utilitarianism. This suggests that the right, or ethical, action

maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people over the longest term.

For someone to make a choice that is beneficial to all parties involved under the

theory of Utilitarian Ethics, there must be a higher motivation underlying the choice that

is being made. If a man is following the law of God that dictates that a man love his

neighbor as himself, then he would clearly not choose a course of action that would bring

a consequence to his neighbor that he himself would not want to suffer. But, human

nature being what it is, there must still be a more basic motivation for someone to choose
the right, otherwise man would only choose that which does not cause him harm. What

motivates someone to do good? All creatures must have a motive for performing an

action, otherwise they would not do it. A trained animal, for example, will perform tricks

because it has been conditioned to receive a reward at the completion of the required

action. For example, for many years, the military and law enforcement agencies have

trained dogs to find drugs and explosives. They do this by rewarding the dog each time

he performs the action that its handler wants. When the dog correctly finds the explosive

or the drugs, it is rewarded. It must be noted that the handler must find the correct reward

that motivates the dog to perform this action. Sometimes it is a favorite toy or a food

treat. People are the same way. If a person is going to follow a commandment from God

to refrain from doing something that at first glance may seem contrary to want might

seem pleasurable or rewarding at the time or to do something that at first glance may

seem contrary to the happiness or pleasure of that person, then they must be motivated to

obey by the promise of a more powerful reward. God has promised that those individuals

who faithfully keep all his commandments for the duration of their mortal life will be

rewarded with eternal life, which is to live eternally in his presence. This motivation will

cause believers to make choices that conform to the commandment of loving your

neighbor as yourself, or any other commandment of God.

What about Deontological Ethics? This theory addresses “Rights” that people

have and the duties associated with them and then makes decisions based on that. One

problem I have with this theory is that it seems to define a Right as something that each

person is owed rather then something that each person is free to pursue. The quote from

the reading that I found interesting was: “Simply because an action is permissible does
not mean that one has a right to it.” I agree with this statement, but I also want to break

this statement down into it’s elements. I am a believer that words mean things. Take the

choice of the word permission in the quote. Permission is a fickle thing. It can be

revoked at anytime for any reason. If a person must seek permission before performing

an action, they are not free, but slaves, for only slaves seek permission.1 A Right on the

other hand is quite different. A Right is something that protects you from the oppression

of a government or another person. It does not require permission because a Right is

given to man by God, not from a government. In fact, there really is only one

fundamental Right that man has, the Right to life. Ayn Rand said it this way: “Life is a

process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the Right to life means the Right to

engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take

all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance,

the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life,

liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)”2 As I stated earlier, I think that the quote from the

background reading mis-defines what a Right is. Defining a Right as something that

someone is owed rather then the freedom and liberty to pursue ones own course in life is

a dangerous bastardization of the true meaning of a Right. I believe that this mis-

definition has lead to the development of the Deontological theory of Ethics. There is a

spirited debate going on in our country today with regards to public policy and Rights.

Congress is currently debating whether or not the government should provide no cost

medical coverage for all citizens, or Universal Healthcare. Those who support this policy

1
Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand column a collection of her weekly newspaper articles, written for
the Los Angeles Times ; with additional, little-known essays. Oceanside, Calif: Second
Renaissance Books, 1991. Print.
2
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. Signet, 1964. Print.
use the argument that medical coverage is a Right and therefore Government has a duty

to provide free medical coverage to all citizens. This is text book Deontological ethics.

Where I start to have a problem with Deontological Ethics is that when someone

is given a “Right”, someone else looses a “Right”. For example, in the case of Universal

Healthcare, if someone is given the Right to have free medical coverage, someone else

loses the Right use the fruits of their labor as they see fit. In other words, the duty to

provide medical services for all citizens is not a net gain to the greatest number of people,

as some would infer. Taxes would have to be raised to pay for the coverage, thus robbing

most people of their Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When someone

keeps more of what they earn, their freedom is protected, and when someone has more of

their income taken in taxes, their freedom is taken from them. Their Rights have been

diminished at the expense of another. If this were to be analyzed via Utilitarian Ethics, it

might not be considered ethical as this would not necessary maximize the benefit for all

citizens over the long term.

In conclusion, it is through God and his unalterable laws that ethics, morality and

right and wrong are defined. These laws are binding on all people whether they believe

them or not or whether they understand them or not. Additionally, all Rights come from

God and cannot be taken away. Such removal of Rights would constitute tyranny and

would most definitely be considered unethical. I feel that of the two theories of ethics

described in this module, the best fit for the thoughts and ideas that I laid out is the

Utilitarian theory of ethics.