Ethics has become the secular approach to teaching right and wrong, and the name “God” is never mentioned in a college text as a basis for conduct when ethics is taught.
There are definition from Webster and then there are those implied concepts that carry a mood or feeling with them and transcend what the literal definition means. Ethics is the concept of right and wrong in the absence of God. Even the most secularist concede the need for norms of behavior and this is also the case in business, politics, accounting, human relationships, and education.
Examples:
Do a “Find” (under the edit tab) for the word God in Wikipedia under the term ethics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Zero hits.
Do the same thing for under the description of morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality Several hits.
Duke is a mirror into Americas’, and even the Western world’s soul. From Clintons “most ethical administration ever” to the common and even acceptable business practices in this country or interpersonal relationships and marriage. People always talk about the things they don’t have, and there is a reason why in most MBA programs we teach ethics as part of nearly every class. We talk about right and wrong behavior, but we don’t even know what it is! The problem with knowing right and wrong can best be exemplified with a typical undergraduate text in cultural anthology at an American university.
Basically the entire textbook can be summarized in two statements.
1. Behavior has to be judged through the social filters and norms of that society.
2. Applying ones own moral standards to judge others makes one jingoistic and narrow minded.
What modern ethics essentially teaches is what one of my professors told me in a class: “it is a matter of pride and accomplishment to have ethics” What this really means is that we look at the performance and the bottom line and accept that which brings the highest yield as “ethical”. I proceeded to tell him that the Nazi’s while implementing their final solution were highly effective and efficient! He didn’t like that. How does this tie into Duke? The leadership at Duke behaved in a way they saw as minimizing the damage to them firstly and to their school secondly. It was a political decision, and in their mind probably even “ethical”.
What you end up with is a way of thinking that sees no wrong in any behavior except if the “mob” comes to consensus that it’s wrong. Nietzsche referred to this as the herd. What you end up with is a version of “mob rule”. It is a life without morals and principals. Morals usually refer to a divine source and deal in absolutes. Morals normally entail a concept of “principals” that are not for sale, bargaining or compromise. Ethics are hollow and the term itself is meaningless essentially.
In this Duke case the mob in the coliseum put their thumbs up (actually it would be down but Hollywood has revered this and it has become accepted this way) and chose to let those innocent lacrosse players go. The leadership at Duke will follow suit. Politically when the issue first arose however, the leadership acted in a way that was to save their skin. Where were their principals? Had some media outlets not picked up on this story and ran with it the way they did, what would the “ethical” leadership at Duke have done? Had all the media been negative would they have stood by their students they knew were only accused and most likely innocent or thrown them under the bus? As I said, in the absence of principals which require morals, it just boils down to version of mob rule, and there essentially is no right and wrong anymore.
The important thing is that they have an ethics department!
Just an ever-expanding "Big Book of Laws" which races to outlaw just about everything you can think of.
EXCELLENT post, Red6.