Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Ethics and Morality

Another Fantasy Discussion About Ethics and Morality

        When it comes to situations as serious and complex as the philosophical issues of morality and ethics that must be considered in these types of cases, I often find myself incapable of making any decision without council.  For this reason I have consulted with both Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Here I recount our discussion and deliver my conclusions based on its content.

        I start the conversation by simply asking, “In general, what does it mean to act ethically?”  After a moment of thought, Kant opens up and replies “To fulfill the moral duties that all people in all situations should follow.”(Chaffee461)  Nietzsche laughed in response insisting that what we are talking about is really what he calls our “will to power”.(495)  He continued by reminding us he has always maintained that the ultimate moral good is simply the individual imposing his or her own values on to others by means of exerting their own will to power to its extreme potential.  I thought about this for a few moments before asking them to relate their philosophical theories directly to these three particular cases.  Kant said that all three are instances of individuals not acting morally or as they should be.  Nietzsche laughs again at my ignorance and states that it is obvious that all three cases are about one individual trying to impose his or her own will to power or set of values on the other respective parties.  “Thank you,” I said to them both as I shook their hands, “I have some thinking to do.” 

         As I began considering our discussion I had to side with Nietzsche and his belief that all three cases did seem to involve one person forcing their own will or morals onto another in some way.  However Kant throws a broad net when he stated that people act ethically when they fulfill moral duty and implying that moral duty is what all people should follow in any and all situations.  But define “moral duty”?  Is it what’s best for the individual or for all?  It almost seems to suggest a “gut feeling” type of reaction.  Some situations and circumstances are not easily determined as to the morally correct thing to do.  Indeed it can get rather complicated.  Overall it does make for a sound argument. On the other hand, Kant’s theory allows a set of universal morals by which most of us believe in and live by today.  Unfortunately it is Nietzsche’s theory that seems to be on to something.  When applying his theory to history it is apparent that people have always forced and imposed their values, morals, beliefs, ethics and religion onto others since we have existed.  So Nietzsche’s argument is, to some degree, valid. 

        After reflecting for some time on the conversation/discussion with my friends Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, and after carefully reviewing the cases before me once more, I have come to a conclusion.  Taking into account Kant’s theory I cannot deny that there are indeed some universal values and morals that all people share.  However I have come to believe that, whether we know it or not, whether intentional or unintentional we do try to force and impose or will and values onto others.  That said, I can see that in each of the three cases there is some kind of moral/s being questioned, broken and/or challenged.  While each situation here brings its own set of circumstances that make them ethical dilemmas, all of them are, in some way or another, both ethical and unethical depending on the morals and ethics of the individuals involved.  This supports the notion that ethics is a set of the individuals’ morals that determines if they act morally.  Moreover it lends credibility to Nietzsche’s theory because the individual always fights for his or her own moral beliefs and ethics to be imposed as law.  They do this regardless of others opinions or values or beliefs.  Everyone believes themselves to be right and everyone else as wrong.  With this in mind I give my verdict on the three cases. So in the case of the medically assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez I say she was not treated unethically because it is the law of the land against it and the law reflects the ethics and morals of the population.  As for the defense lawyer contemplating violating her oath and allegiance to her client, I say she would be acting unethically to do so.  She knew when becoming a criminal defense attorney that she would represent guilty people at some point.  She also has the ability to refuse or step aside as this man’s attorney.   And finally the case of the animal testing and reported cruelty by the university I must agree that, at least in this instance, the testing is not necessary because it cannot prevent the disease from spreading regardless of whether it does or not.  Thus the experiments are unethical. 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson