What standards can you use to determine whether a political action is ethical?
Following the discourse of Chomsky ("Hopes and Prospects", 2011), in my paper "ICT and Human Progress" (in the journal "The Information Society", 2013/no. 5) I wrote:
My basic criterion of right and wrong has two levels and it runs like this. Try to imagine somebody else behaving in the way we behave; would we then call such behaviour right or wrong? Try to imagine somebody behaving towards us in the way we behave towards others; would we then call such behaviour right or wrong? If something is wrong when done by others or when done to us, then it *is* wrong and it must not be done; *we too* must not do that. Let us cal this criterion the *mirror principle*: if humanity were able to behave in accordance with this simple principle, the world would be much more reasonable and pleasant place. Many common people, possibly a large majority, behave in accordance with this principle, but many power-holders (leaders) do not. They often behave in the way they call "evil" and "perverse" when practiced by others (Chomsky 2011, 52).
I think that you can't beat the answer given by Chomsky, aptly quoted by Mario Radovan.
Thank you my friends for responding to my question
I believe, there is no obvious or clear-cut way, but there are three questions that may help in determining the ethics of an action:
What is the utility of engaging in the behavior?
Does the utility balance out any harm done by the action?
Does the action conform to standards of equity and justice?
Regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics