(i) Moral Agent

this particular ethical principle states that we do something because that’s

something that everybody does or we have always done it that way. At the same time, we

do not exercise critical reason. For example, ask ourselves why do we have to wear

clothes to cover our bodies especially the reproductive organs? Can’t we just be naked

anywhere and anytime when we feel like it? What wrong with doing that? If we think

critically, everybody have the similar reproductive organ. What differs is the sex organ

between male and female. If we feel ashamed to expose our ‘precious property’ just

because it differs within sex, I assure that it will not happen if it is accepted universally

because if we see it every time, we tend to get bored at it and it will be something that is

normal. It is just the same as you are looking at other part of human body such as the leg,

hand eyes and so on. What is it that makes our genital so special until it is so can’t be

exposed? Actually it is because that everybody does it which makes us follow. So, we

accept it as if it is something compulsory without thinking a little bit far. I don’t agree

with this because it shows that as if we have to follow whatever the past people have

done. In my opinion, I think that we should decide for ourselves in what ever we want to

do, however opinions from others should not be neglected. Why don’t make a revolution

if possible?

(ii) Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is a theory about the nature of right and wrong.

Essentially this theory says that whatever is commanded by God means ‘morally right’

and whatever forbidden by God means ‘morally wrong’. This theory provides a powerful
incentive for good behavior and promises a stable society. For example the fear of God

punishment in the afterlife will prevent man from committing sins and the hope of reward

in the afterlife will encourage man to do good things. Indirectly, these will create a

harmonious society. Nonetheless, there are criticisms to this particular theory. What if

God’s commands as arbitrary? He could have given different commands just as easily for

example commanded us to be liars, killers or rapist would be right. In my opinion as a

Muslim, it is our obligation to obey whatever God commands us. I kind of agree with this

theory because I believe that God commands us something is because it is right. If we

follow his command, we avoid the troublesome consequences and God commands are the

result of his wisdom in knowing what is best.

(iii) Kierkegaard’s Recommendations on Faith and Reason

He recommended that let science and reason deal with the tried and true facts of

daily life. While in the other hand, let faith and passion deal with the sublime mysteries

of creation. I disagree with this recommendation. In my opinion, science and faith can be

combined. As a result, we can discover the mysteries of creation.

(iv) John Dewey’s and Henry Sidgwick’s Views on Ethics

John Dewey’s view on ethics is that experimental method in science was the one

and only true method for any kind of problem solving. While Henry Sidgwick’s view is

that ethics is a science and it is possible to achieve systematic and precise general

knowledge of what ought to be. I kind of disagree with both of their views. In my

opinion, there are differences between science and ethics. Ethics talks more on morality
and usually based on philosophy. It debates whether something is right or wrong. There is

no absolute answer to it. But for science it differs a lot. Science talks more on facts.

Therefore asking whether something is scientifically possibly is totally different from

asking whether we should do it or not.

(v) Determinism

Determinism says that everything was predetermined to happen just the way it

actually happened, including our thoughts and desires. Although we think we are

responsible for our actions, the truth is that they are electrochemical and mechanical

events just like any other physical process. However if we did actually did a crime, we

shouldn’t blame God or our destiny as if it was determined for us. This is absolutely

irrelevant for a human being to be based on the ‘what will be, will be’ quote and just

depend on fate. A person like this doesn’t have vision and motivation to lead their own

life.

(vi) Psychological Egoism

According to this theory, each person is so constituted that he will look out only

for his own interest. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect people to behave

‘altruistically’. People will normally respond to the needs of others only when there is

something in it for them. According to James Rachels, pure altruism is a myth. It simply

does not exist. For example, donating money to an orphanage home is a demonstration of

one’s powers. The person who donates is actually demonstrating to himself and to the

world that he is more capable than others. He is just showing off his own superiority.
Although the person who donates will not believe that this is what he is doing but it is

natural that we would interpret our actions in a way that is flattering to us. So the

question is whether self-interest similar with selfishness. This does not necessary means

the same. It depends on the situation. For example, a person wants to eat to satisfy his

hunger. He is actually fulfilling his self-interest but that he is being selfish. Nevertheless,

sometimes we do things which we don’t want to. Maybe we had promised to do it or

probably it is part of our duty. And still the good feelings will come after doing the good

acts. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having good feelings after doing good

acts. Isn’t it?

(vii) Ethical Egoism

An ethical theory claiming that the pursuit of self-interest is morally correct and

rational. It means that a person a person should always act on their own self-interest no

matter what. According to Ayn Rand, Russian –born, American Philosopher, she claims

that ethics would be less hypocritical if everyone acknowledged the truth of its claims. I

don’t really agree with this. It seems to encourage man to be selfish and eager to get to

their objectives without thinking of others. My point of view is that this particular ethical

principle is the absolute unethical principle. Take this example, let say that I am rich and

I have a colleague who is quite unfortunate. Should I not help him and abandoned him

just because the ethical egoism says that we must put our self-interest at priority.

Definitely never! I am not that kind o person. I wasn’t brought up to just look for myself.

We live in a society not individually.

(viii) Ethical Subjectivism

It is a moral judgment which is nothing more than expression of personal opinion.

In Ethical Subjectivism, there is no moral truth or absolute that is independent of our

thoughts. So each of us determines what is right or wrong for ourselves. In Ethical

Subjectivism, individuals just don’t agree with what is right or wrong. But there are only

opinions. However the fact that we have opinions does not mean that there is no truth.

Ethical Subjectivism takes away the ability of making mistakes, learning from them, and

moving on. One example is when a topic is raised (eg. Having save sex before marriage

is allowed). Certain people will agree to say it is right while some will object saying that

it is wrong. For me it’s wrong. Well, it is not wrong to say wrong. Those who agree can

go on with it, while those who object can stay away from it without having to disturb

what their belief. This is good in a way where everybody can give their opinions and

determined for themselves. However the weakness is it doesn’t show the unity of a

society in certain issues. Having different perspectives and thoughts could be dangerous

in which it can end up with riots.

(ix) Cultural Relativism

Believes that ethical beliefs are relative from culture to culture. So whatever

traditions, beliefs or customs in a culture are right, just because they belong to that

culture. For example, there are differences between west and east in terms of culture. For

the westerners, having to live together with person from the opposite sex without any

family relationship is one of many cultures that had been accepted by them. However for

the eastern culture such as in Malaysia, this is totally wrong and unacceptable. Therefore
if westerners come to a country like Malaysia, they have to respect this culture by not

doing the same thing here. Cultural Relativism has its own strength; it teaches us to

respect and appreciate other cultures and accept it as a variety. The same thing I should

do if I were to go to their country, not that I will leave my culture and traditions just to be

accepted there, but in a way by respecting their belief. As long as I don’t offend my

religion’s principles. Tolerance of cultural differences is a good think to do. The

weakness of Cultural Relativism is that it leaves s powerless to say anything about ethics.

(x) Moral Objectivism

Moral Objectivism is in contrast to Cultural Relativism. It is the belief that

morality is universal, eternal and unchanging. For example, raping is always wrong. This

belief is accepted by everybody who is rational universally because it infringes the rights

of human and human freedom. I agree with Moral Objectivism as it promotes a stand

representing the people of the world by having the same thought about certain issues.

(xi) Cynicism

Cynicism is an attitude of doubt directed against moral beliefs, practices and

institutions. It happens when seeing through false pretenses and at the same time when

trust is gone. Cynicism is not necessary bad if we do something constructive with it and

ethically. Sometimes we need to look at ethics from an outsider’s point of view and be

suspicious of existing norms and institutions, but always doing it with ethically. I agree

and like with Cynicism. In my opinion we shouldn’t be so straight in life because that

makes us naïve. Not having a little bit Cynicism will make us down-trodden.
(xii) Karl Marx’s Views about Ethics

Karl Marx thought that ethics was often used by the wealthy and powerful

hypocritically to keep the hardworking poor in their place. The ruling classes

manipulated ethics in order to deny liberation, community, equality and justice. Equality

is an empty slogan since rights don’t mean so much to the people who don’t have the

capacities to exercise them. However Marx never abandoned ethical ideals, he was just

being cynical about how far our social institutions really live up o them. The good thing

about Karl Marx’s views is that his views are so sincere. It is the fact that in the real

world out there, these happens and it is undeniable that some powerful and hypocrite

people do manipulate the less powerful for their own good.

(xiii) Friedrich Nietzsche’s Nihilism

He thought that ethical ideas such as freedom and responsibility are really not that

ethical, since they demand that we sacrifice our instinctual needs for the sake of living

together peacefully. He thought that ethics can lead to a serious sickness of the soul, since

denying the full and free expression of our natural instinct; finally we end up making

ourselves psychologically and physically sick. Nihilism can be interpreted as ethical

norms which deny what is most vital about human life which is the will to power. The

end result of this concern for moral equality is a suppression of those possessing superior

genius. For Nietzsche, life is risky, so why not embrace the danger of something new and

different? Instead of worshipping ethical norms that stifle creative genius, we should be

worshipping the creative genius that creates ethical norms. I don’t really like this
particular ethical principle because it seems that it refuses to accept most ethical norms

and put aside the principles of various religions.

(xiv) Aristotle’s Views about Happiness

Aristotle believed that a life without virtues was an unhappy life. He distinguished

between happiness and pleasure. According to him, pleasures are fleeting states of mind

in which mainly refers to sensations and feeling, while happiness is a more enduring state

of fulfillment and well being. Aristotle also thought that happiness is the ultimate goal of

life and it comes at the end of a life well lived. I do agree with this ethical principle,

whereby we can see that searching for happiness is given the priority than pleasure. It is

very useful to resolve ethical and moral dilemmas in our daily life. For example, if

someone had naughty idea of having sex before marriage, consider in which group is this

particular activity can be located. Is it happiness or pleasures? Definitely it is pleasure in

which the sensation and good feelings would last for only a few minutes. Then consider

the consequences we might get after that, what if your partner carries HIV or maybe she

will get pregnant? The best way is to get married than have sex. Isn’t it? This will ensure

happiness among the couple without having any worries.

(xv) Integrity

Integrity is a virtuous character trait that is closely related to trustworthiness,

having principles, honesty and reliability. A person who has moral integrity normally

behave in a way that is harmonious and constant, having good wants and good habits.

These differ to a person who lacks integrity whereby they are constantly fighting among
themselves because their wants and habits are at war. This is one of the best ethical

principles. There are no weaknesses we can find in this ethical principle. The strength

about having integrity in oneself is to have the respect from others. In my daily life, of

course I have to practice this ethical principle. I was thought to have this particular ethical

principle since small; therefore it gives me no problem to practice this until now.

However one should not let other people to take advantage on our integrity.

(xvi) Golden Mean

It was created by Aristotle who thought that we have to have the right balance of

virtues. This is because too many virtues can become vice. For example, caring so much

for others that you might end up neglecting your own needs. So in order to lead a virtuous

life, we should not go overboard with any virtue. Instead, we should act moderately. For

Aristotle, exercising virtue requires instrument, intuition and wisdom. We should be able

to measure a situation quickly and design our response accordingly. I agree with the

Golden Mean as it shows the rationality. It is true that we shouldn’t be as nice to others as

this could be taken advantage by insincere people. For example, in my daily life, if

someone asks me to help me with their assignment, help him but always stay alert that

he/she will take advantage on your kindness to do it while at the same time he is relaxing.

(xvii) Aristotle’s Views about Nature

He did not think that nature was created by God in accordance with divine

purpose, but he believed that has its own nature, which prescribes a standard of perfection

and purpose. Example: what differentiates humans from other animals is his ability to
reason and communicate rationally, which we develop the course of our lives with greater

or lesser success. So people who fall below a normal range of activity are thought to

suffer from some deficiency or disability. Besides that, Aristotle also comes out with the

idea that different things have different nature. For example, birds are birds while humans

are humans. He also thought that innate nature dictates standards of normal and good

functioning.

(xviii) Natural Law Doctrine

It was proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. He thought nature was created by God

and reflected his purposes. The ultimate purpose of life was not happiness here on earth

but eternal bliss in the hereafter. Every living thing has a nature appropriate to the kind of

thing it is, and each thing ought to develop its innate potentials. So the highest standards

for judging right or wrong are the universal law of human nature, knowable through

common sense and reason, which are gifts of God. Eg: murder violates other people’s

rational urge to live while suicide goes against the rational urge to live. Questions comes,

if something is being used for a purpose not originally intended, does that means that it is

unnatural? Eg: our reproductive organ is meant for reproduction. Is it unnatural and

wrong if one uses it for pleasure (masturbation)? In my opinion, it is normal to

masturbate and it is nothing to be ashamed of it as long as it doesn’t offend others.

(xix) Natural Rights Doctrine

Natural Law Doctrine became Natural Rights Doctrine that every person has

freedoms or rights to live, liberty and property just because they are human beings. Eg:
the constitution of Malaysia. According to Natural Rights Doctrine, natural laws are

higher than man-made law, since it is based on human nature, which is universal to all

human society. It functions as moral limits upon what government can do to its citizens. I

agree with this doctrine. It ensures the right of the people. Let say if I am not satisfied

with certain policy done by the University in which we have to wear formal attire on

Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. I can bring up the Natural Right Doctrine as to

strengthen my object.

(xx) Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to propose to Social Contract Theory.

Social Contract Theory assumes that people are basically self interested and prone to

fighting over scarce resources. Besides, people would be compelled out of selfishness and

desire for self preservation to reach agreement with one another on minimal rules of

mutually advantageous cooperation. Thomas Hobbes also ask us to imagine what is it like

when there is no such thing as government, no laws, no police and no courts. In this

situation each of us would be free to do as we pleased and there will be no one to tell

what could and couldn’t. This is what they called it ‘the state of nature’. According to this

foremost British philosopher of the seventeenth century, he thought that it would be

dreadful. In the ‘Leviatlhan’ he wrote there would be no place for industry , no

navigation , no knowledge, no arts, no society but continual fear, danger of violent death,

solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

(xxi) John Locke’s Social Contract Theory

 He thought that the idea of to hand over the people’s powers to the government

when it is set up is absurd. He realized how dangerous it would be to give government the

absolute power to do what it wants without limits. Just imagine what are the

consequences if the government you choose is actually a bully? So Locke thinks people

should have a contract with their government limiting its power and requiring it to fulfill

some obligations in exchange with obedience. Therefore if the government violates

natural right of its people, people can disobey or overthrow it and if there is any dispute

between government and people, the people is the supreme judge, not the government. A

good example can be seen from what had happen to our neighbor, Indonesia during the

economic crisis in the late 90s. We have seen how powerful the people of Indonesia are

when their former President Suharto was overthrow by the people of Indonesia due to the

unsatisfactory economic development and poor administration together with the issue of

corruption among their leaders. However the normally, the contract with the government

is not explicitly consent. The strength of this theory is that it presents society as a

cooperative undertaking in which burdens and benefits are shared equally. I like this

particular ethical principle. This is because I found that the most important element in

Social Contract Theory is equity or fairness. I can use this particular ethical to ensure that

there is no one to be oppressed. For example, if the Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar o the

University seems to do work based on self-interest which is like priories field trip to

oversea among members but put second to resolve the students problems(bus problem for

example).

(xxii) Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Views on Social Fairness

 His views on social fairness is that the society is like a living thing in which even

the smallest part is essential to the well being of the whole organism. Because of the

equally important each of us is contributing to the social good, we must guarantee that

our social contracts are beneficial to the least wealthy also. I agree with this because the

strength to this view is that it ensures the rights of every people including the less

fortunate. It also guarantees equality to a community. If I am to be a leader of this

country in the future I will not forget to implement Rousseau’s view in my

administration. Eg: I will not develop differences between the rich and the poor. The poor

should be assisted while the rich should not have a special treatment. Everybody is equal.

Honestly I’ll do that.

(xxiii) John Rawl’s View on Social Fairness

He thought that it is not right some groups should benefit at the expense of others.

He argues that in a truly fair society, each person would have an equal opportunity to

succeed no matter what kind of life he was born into. No one deserves the advantages or

disadvantages they are born with because it is simply a matter of luck. Therefore those

who are born into good circumstances should be willing to give up some of their wealth

to help those at the bottom. I also like this view by Rawl similar to the view of Rousseau.

Let’s take the familiar example as the above whereby if I were to be a leader o this

country. Well, according to John Rawl, people born into unfortunate circumstances

should be given the same opportunity as those to the fortunate. Let’s look through the

perspective of education. Those who have rich parent normally have better education

because they are able to study abroad while the less rich are left behind because their
parents couldn’t afford to spend such a lot of money in education which is expensive

nowadays especially in tertiary education. So if me as a leader, I should ensure that

assistance to the less fortunate will be done by my government to help them further their

studies. This can be done by giving education loans or scholarship to the deserving.

(xxiv) Immanuel Kant’s Deontology

Immanuel Kant takes duties to other people to be the core ethics. For him

morality is about following absolute rules and these rules are universal and without

exception. For example we have to tell the truth, keep our promises and never commit

suicide. Kant also believed that the only thing that is totally and completely good without

exception is a good will which is willing for good things. Kant’s duty-based theory holds

that duties are absolute obligations that you must follow through regardless of your

personal feelings or inclinations. Besides that, duties apply to all of us in the same way

without exception. The only thing good in itself is a good will. It is the only good that

can’t be used for a bad purpose. Kant also thought that, to live a truly moral life, we must

act in as rational and consistent ways. For example, we should not rob because if we will

to rob, then everyone should also will to rob, but then we will also be robbed, which is

something that we don’t want to happen to us. So, we want to rob but not want to be

robbed. This shows that we are logically inconsistent.

(xxv) Retributivism

Retributivism was supported by Kant, which can be explained by ‘an eye for an

eye’. For example, before a robber plan to rob a bank, he must have thought about the
consequences. So we must respect his choice by giving them the consequences. I agree

with Retributivism because it ensures a harmonious kind of society and fairness. If I were

a judge, I’ll apply this particular ethical principle in my profession. Let say a criminal

commits homicide; he definitely must be sentence to death. This action is similar to what

the Malays saying, ‘Hutang darah dibayar darah’.

(xxvi) Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that determines good or bad, right or wrong,

based on outcomes. It suggests that how much good we do or how much bad we avoid is

the measuring stick for ethics. Let’s say that if we are stuck in an ethical dilemma, we

should choose the act that does the greatest good or the least amount of harm for the

greatest number of people. Ex: let’s say that in the future my career would be a ……

suppose one day a terrorist set a nuclear bomb in the central city of Azkaban (making it

up), populated by 200 millions of people. Unfortunately the only person who is able to

deactivate the nuclear bomb is me. (wow!). Therefore if I decided to take that

responsibility, I’ll definitely be exposed by the nuclear radiation which might cost my

life. Shall I do it or not? Well, if I am a consequentialism type of person, I will do it for

the sake of the 200 million people. By that action, definitely I’ll be remembered as a hero

when I’m dead (psychological egoism). Well, that is not the major objective though.

What matters to me is that the act I’ve done does the greatest good and the least amount

of harm for the greatest number of people. Isn’t that amazing?

(xxvii) Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism

 Jeremy Bentham advocated a version of consequentialism called Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which holds that actions are right in proportions as they

tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By

happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain while by unhappiness is pain and

the privation of pleasure. However for Bentham’s Principle of Utility states that when we

are given a choice between social policies or alternative actions, we do the one that has

the best overall consequences for everyone concerned. According to Swedish Sociologist

Gunnar Myrdal, the strength of Utilitarianism is that it firmly resists ‘corruption’ by

possibly irrational elements. By sticking to the principle of utility as the only standard for

judging right and wrong, it avoids all danger of incorporating into moral theory,

prejudices feelings and’ intuitions’ that have no rational basis. Nevertheless, consider

also the negative consequences of Utilitarianism. Consider a situation where there was a

racial strife caused from a crime done by a Negro who rapes a white woman and that race

riot occurs as a result of the crime. White mobs with the connivance of the police.

Suppose too that in the situation, I am the President of that particular country and

coincidently I have a Utilitarianism based ethical principal. If I think that a quick arrest

would stop the riots and lynching, surely I will direct the police to make a quick arrest

although it may caused some unlucky innocent black to be accused for murder. I must

conclude that I have a duty to bear false witness although it brings about the punishment

of an innocent person in order to gained back peace. Of course this might have some bad

consequences. The innocent Negro most probably will be executed. But there would be

enough good consequences to lessen the riots and the anger of the white people. Again,

the argument continues, it would be wrong to bring about the execution of the innocent
man. Therefore, Utilitarianism which implies it would be right if it creates more

happiness is not always correct. Do I like this particular ethical principle suggested by

Bentham? Not really.

(xxviii) John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

It is similar to what Bentham’s idea which is, acts that bring about an overall

increase in happiness or pleasure are morally good, while those that result in suffering or

pain are morally bad. However Mill modified the earlier Utilitarianism theory of

Bentham by arguing that quality of pleasure is proportional to the degree to which it

contributes to a person’s overall intellectual, moral and aesthetic development. For

example, me as a student who is taking a Professional Work Ethics class this semester

caught into a dilemma whether to go to class or to go for a movie featuring Nicole

Kidman which happen to be my favorite actress. Which one shall I choose? According to

Mill’s Utilitarianism, of course I should go for ethic class, not just because the lecture is

fun and entertaining, but also it benefits in the long run. (Honestly). The strength of this

principle suggested by Mill is for instant the human laws which are the rules that have

been set out to ensure best possible outcomes for all. Ex: homicide is illegal because over

the ages, humans figured out that that it has bad consequences for human in total. It is the

sake of man though.

(xxix) W.D. Ross’ Prima Facie Duties

He thought that all duties are conditional. Duties can be overridden by other

duties. A Prima Facie duty is that when we are in any given situation, we could be certain
of what our duties are without resorting to consequences. A prima facie duty is any duty

that can override another duty. For Ross, he classified duties into duty of fidelity, duty of

causing harm, duty of reparation, duty of gratitude, duty of justice and duty of doing

good. According to Ross also, without appealing to outcomes, reasoning through a

situation will tell us which of two conflicting duties allows us to fulfill the greatest

balanced of overall duty. I kind of like this ethical principle because for example if I were

caught in two duties which is to tell the truth or to lie, if lying will resolve problem,

therefore I shall go for it.

(xxx) Jurgen Habermas’ Discourse Ethics

He improved the Social Contract Theory and called it the Discourse Ethics.

According to this theory, he said that instead of imaginary social contracts between

fictional social participants, we may set up real conversations between real people and let

government decides to go on with the National Service Program, do they really set up a

conversation between government and the citizens to get feedbacks and opinions? Well,

of course most of the cabinet members will support it. But does their voice represent the

people’s voice? However a question comes again, can the average people be trusted to

know what is it best for them? According to Habermas, he said we should make

democracy fairer, and then debates will tend to be rational. Using the same example we

can say that, although we know that overall the National Service Program will give more

benefits, discussions with the people are essential to ensure that they are well informed

and the most important thing is to leave them with satisfactory feelings for the

government.