American Ethics

First, yay! I wrote this essay nearly a year ago to submit for a scholarship. I ended up submitting this same essay to three or four scholarship programs that were looking for essays on Ethics in America.

I wrote this because I thought it would be challenging to find a central ethical code of conduct that would pertain to America as an entity. Since America is widely individualized, there are times when it gets hard to remember that not everyone follows the same ethical codes of conduct.

Anyway, I received word last week that one scholarship program has offered me the second place prize for this essay, $1,000. And the initial program I entered has just awarded me their third place prize of another $1,000. So hurray for me. That should at least help with the $30,000 in students loans I've acquired this year :)

Anyway, I know this is a cheap ploy for attention; I really wanted to post this essay up on this site when I first wrote it, but I became paranoid that the scholarship committees would see it posted here and accuse me of plagiarizing. So I had to wait until the announcements had all been made. And now they have, so I would like to share it with you...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abstract

Every human is faced with several decisions throughout his or her life; while other animals have to make daily decisions as well, the human integration of ethics within the decision-making process sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Ethics are derived from many areas in human society: religious beliefs, family morals, living standards, laws and regulations. Ethical behavior and decision-making is a dynamic process; such a practice evolves as society grows--splitting off into new categories and finding new uses. At the center of any code of ethics is the strong belief that the behavior or practice in question is righteous and justified. Laws are sometimes set up as a way to supplement or empower ethical behavior; and yet ethics remains separate from the law because there can never be a standard by which every one agrees to follow. Evolving ethical standards often result in the adjusting of laws to allow for such changes. American ethics have fast evolved from the precedent left from the English Empire. The expanse of ethical behavior in America must encompass every one both collectively and individually.

American Ethics

Ethics and ethical decision-making both play vital roles in the overall effectiveness of American government, politics, and the happiness and security in citizens’ lives. Ethics can be defined as the study of moral values and the influences on these values as well as the influence these values have on other aspects of Americans’ lives. Americans of all social classes are faced with ethical decisions every day; such decisions can and often do place stress on a person’s emotions. In a person’s professional life, ethics can impact that person’s practiced values, such as how he or she will treat customers, interaction with coworkers and supervisors, and his or her overall business integrity. In a student’s life, ethics will determine his or her overall academic honesty and integrity in areas such as cheating, plagiarism, research techniques, and social interaction with classmates and staff.

Because the American culture is made up of a collective of cultural ideas from around the world, American ethics must be preserved both collectively and individually. Ethics are a subjective matter: meaning that a person’s ethics will vary to at least some extent from another person’s ethics. As an individualistic society, The United States of America has had to implement and adjust a standard code of ethical behavior as has never been seen before; a code which was not dictated by religious codes or ancestral teachings. Within this ethical code, room has to be left for individual interpretation and growth as well.

This need for both individualistic and collective ethical standards helped to shape the political regime of The United States as well. Virtually every decision made by any American is to influence or is influenced by America’s politics. Most decisions are linked, either directly or indirectly, to some type of political ideology. Politics has been in practice in various forms for thousands of years; during which time politics has been able to mold some civilizations and the lives of those people while causing the fall of other civilizations. With so much practice, adjustment, and evolving, how can the political process remain confusing to many with seemingly limitless dissatisfying outcomes? The reason is the varying ethical views that culminate to shape America’s political regime.

Human Nature and Ethics within the Political Spectrum

Before looking into how ethics can affect American politics, a person must first look at the influences of both ethics and politics: human nature. Certain questions must be answered. Does human nature drive America’s political agenda? Do ethics drive America’s political agenda? If so, to what extent does this drive influence the citizens of the United States? To understand these questions, the first step must be to understand the meanings of human nature and ethics.

Essentially, human nature refers to the driving force that narrows a citizen’s political ideology into a path that will maximize his or her gains with as little output as necessary. Ethics, like human nature, narrows a nation’s political ideology into a path that will also maximize gains; however, ethics differs from human nature in the political arena specifically because ethics work towards what is best for a group as a whole rather than what is best for an individual’s personal gain. In the United States of America, the citizens are not viewed as part of a larger community; rather, they view them selves as a collection of individuals working together within a larger community (Trumbull, et al, 1998, p.17). America’s political ethics serves to provide a guiding philosophy; this guide strives to provide the best for everyone even when the ideology does not seem the most effective means to gain.

After understanding human nature and ethics in American politics, these two ideals can be used to divide the outcomes of America’s political decisions into what the citizens need and what they want. Each time a decision about a want or need is made, either by an individual or a group of people, human nature and ethics both play an important role.

For example, many politicians in the United States are proposing tax-cuts or similar relief from tax-payers; these tax cuts are clearly being proposed out of a want for American citizens to save their money and a want for politicians to gain popularity. Tax monies go towards programs within the United States government for security, law enforcement, road maintenance, and various other public services. Cutting taxes inadvertently cuts the funding to these many programs. This example clearly illustrates how human nature in America can corrupt the political system even when the intentions are good. Human nature dictates a perceived need to pay little money for goods on an individual basis; but on the whole spending little money for a good is not in the best interest of society because people will face losing valuable needs like public safety. This example demonstrates how imperative understanding the potential ramifications of personal motives in all political decisions.

Political Ends: Common Good or Public Interest

The political ends topic is closely related to the prior issue of ethics and human nature within the political spectrum. When discussing political ends people must decide what values and purposes they would like to see as the result of their political decisions. As in human nature and ethics, people must form a political ideology that will effectively separate what they want and what they need. Once a political ideology has been decided upon, people then have to decide what institution is best suited for the outcome they desire.

For example, if the outcome a person desires is anarchy then there would be no sense in him or her trying to achieve their objective through political institutions. Anarchy, by definition, means a state of disorder due the absence of a governmental system; thus, creating a political agenda to obtain anarchy by going through the political channels would be absurd. An anarchist would most definitely have to rely on the support of social institutions to help in achieving his or her goal of a society that was based on anarchy. To an extent, American politicians seeking tax cuts use social institutions to achieve their goals; for their ideas to work and pass, American politicians must present their ideas to a social institution--the public.

People can rely on political institutions to achieve their goals if the political institutions are the appropriate channels for their desired outcome. This is the most effective way to create big change. For instance, President Bush has an agenda to remove all terrorist elements from the world. This is a goal that has created much criticism and debate from social institutions; yet these social institutions are relatively powerless to stop him from following through with his agenda. From a political standpoint, President Bush’s agenda is working towards the common good: two hostile nations have been toppled, and terrorists are on the run. However, in regard to public interest, this agenda seems to be failing miserably; the funding for such a war comes with a high price-tag, and high death tolls are forcing people to reconsider the need for this war. However, with every terrorist removed from action, the United States becomes a safer place to live.
The interests of both the common good and public interest play an important role in deciding the desired outcome of the American political system. On some of the topics that require decisions, such as those made on topics like abortion, people can easily see the role of ethics and individualism: whose rights are to be protected--those of the unborn baby or the would-be mother? Which would serve the common good and which would serve public interest? The ethics and morals of each person will undoubtedly guide each person into making a decision he or she deems as not only being right for him or her as an individual but also what he or she values as morally right for American society as a whole: freedom of choice or a right to life.

Freedom and Obligation

One example of how far America’s ethics have grown and adjusted in a short time can be seen in America’s anti-discrimination policies and laws. First, a person must consider United States history. Less than 150 years ago, many Americans considered slavery to be a perfectly justified practice. So much so that laws were passed to help keep black slaves from integrating with white workers; these laws later turned into racism, which in turn became an ethical social custom. Additionally, women were not considered true citizens as they had not been given the right to vote. Over the course of time peoples’ values began to change and led to a collective redefining of the word citizen. This new definition, which now included women and members of a minority group, affected America’s ethical values enough to influence and implement new anti-discriminatory laws. In today’s America, all social practices perceived to be a violation of human rights are rejected not only by the United States government; they have been rejected by ethically sensitive, reasonable persons with no concerns over what social conventions support such practices (Cassidy, 1995). Essentially, not only will the law not allow for the practice of discrimination but discrimination of any sort is socially unacceptable and deemed by most to be an unethical practice.
Attempting to develop a political ideology can become a daunting task when applying these concepts to freedom and obligation. Americans are all granted freedom as a fundamental right from the founders and writers of the constitution. Because of America’s efforts to develop a single culture that would include all groups, Americans have inadvertently created a new culture defined by its ethics and freedoms.

Individualism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of personal independence and the virtues of self-reliance (Trumbull, et al, 1998). Its morals and politics stress individual liberties and help to encourage oppositions to any central authority which would take control away from the individuals. Unlike conformist societies, individualists do not view them selves as part of a larger community; rather, they are a collection of individuals--each with his or her own strengths, weaknesses, and moral standards to offer--working together within a community.

This philosophy is often compared to or confused with egoism (Trumbull, et al, 1998); however, an individualist is not necessarily egocentric. The United States is a highly individualistic society (Trumbull, et al, 1998, p.17). As a multicultural society, the importance of each individual culture inherent in the citizens of the United States stands out. As democratic regime, the rights of each person are as valued as the rights of each cultural group; regardless of the heritage and background. Therefore, to pick one collective ideal that would accurately describe and benefit each person is a near impossibility. The government of an individualistic society such as the United States often takes a defensive role in politics: advocating and protecting the rights of each individual so long as the actions of that individual do not in any way infringe upon or take away the rights of another individual.

Individualism has given way to the development of freedoms within societies such as the United States as “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Religion.” These freedoms are highly guarded by the government and the citizens who share and enjoy these types of freedoms. The values and fragilities of such freedoms are taught to the children of the United States in various ways: including parental influence at home and practical application within the school systems. Such freedoms came at a high cost: revolutionists fought and died to break the oppressive ties of economic, political, and religious authorities to grant their children the freedom to pursue individuality. Many more lives have died since protecting these individual freedoms.

As an individualist society, parents within the United States often begin teaching their children independence at very early ages (Trumbull, et al, 1998).
Children socialized in an individualistic orientation are attuned early on to learning about physical objects and the physical world as a way of facilitating independence…Parents often encourage their children to amuse themselves with toys so that they will be independent and not require constant adult attention (Cited from Trumbull, et al, 1998, p.27).

The implications of such an individualistic society are demonstrated clearly with the school systems of the United States (Trumbull, et al, 1998):
The egalitarian, individualistic ‘mainstream’ society encourages children to become independent thinkers who focus on their own achievement and on fulfilling their individual needs (Trumbull, et al, 1998, p.29).

Because of individualism, the people of the United States must rely heavily on their personal ethics and morals when making a decision. Many of these ethics are adapted on a federal scale as illustrated by laws and socially accepted behavior that may contradict a person’s upbringing. While as individuals Americans respect the ideals of other cultures, as a society America is viewed as a very ethnocentric culture. Ethnocentrism is the belief that a person’s culture is superior to another culture based on his or her own beliefs and foundations (Encarta Dictionary, 2006).

For example, many tribal countries, such as Africa, hold a distinct spiritual belief linked to cutting their skin. Some say these cuts show what tribe they are from; others believe the rituals are held to keep harm away. People from other cultures outside of these tribes often wonder how these rituals can be considered moral; many believe the children are being tortured at their parents consent.
However, people in America have a culturally based reason for thinking such activities are immoral. Founded on the belief of individual freedom, the government has established many laws protecting the rights of children and adult citizens--protecting their physical well-being. While the American government wishes to preserve the individual cultures that come together in one nation, the government does not allow rituals that would harm any other person. Therefore, people immigrating to the United States from a tribal culture that would view skin-cutting as a spiritual ritual would not be allowed to participate in such a ritual once in America. To do so would violate another person’s rights to live safely and happily without undue harm to his or her physical well-being.
The American government is constantly evolving to tackle new changes so that its citizens can live in a land of equality; the topics of debate have changed over time, but people on both sides of each debate or issue are viewed equally as important components to American society. American citizens have the obligation of staying informed on such topics and making informed, ethical decisions to the best of their abilities to maintain this equality. As someone once said, “Freedom is not free;” freedom comes with the price tag of obligation to protect that freedom and preserve freedom for the next generation.

Foreign Relations

Foreign relations are comprised of the outward acts of the American governmental system to other governments around the world. These acts can be either helpful or harmful; but they are viewed as both good and as serving the best interest of American and allied political institutions. The United States government does not do anything that does not have some positive outcome for either themselves or for America’s allies.

Terrorism provides for a prime example of America’s good foreign relations. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, President Bush gave a speech that declared all terrorists as wanted men; additionally Bush made the distinction that any country harboring terrorists would be considered a threat to the United States and the rest of the free world. This act of foreign relations announced America’s foreign policy and intolerance of terrorists to the world; this speech also allowed countries willfully harboring terrorists the opportunity to review their own political agendas and relationship with the United States government.
This was a very effective piece of foreign policy because the result provided for two benefits. First, terrorists would be turned over to avoid harmful repercussions; and second, hostile nations that would refuse our ultimatum were easily identified. This piece of foreign relations was also harmful for both sides because both sides experienced monetary setbacks and human casualties and saw an immense decrease in world popularity and trust.

Presidential speeches make up but a small part of America’s foreign relations. A good example of a helpful foreign relation would be NAFTA. This free trade agreement provides for all parties involved to prosper from a lack of trading sanctions such as lower tariffs and other international sanctions. All parties benefit from these types of agreements; and rarely is there any conflict.
The ethics within America’s foreign relations must continue to honor and preserve the rights and safety of American citizens; however the ethical standards must be altered to respect those with whom America intends to interact. In the situation with Iraq, the United States government has been placed in a precarious position as the citizens of the United States wish to pull away from Iraq; this plea for America’s public interest is being weighed against the common good and need for Iraq to develop a political system that will not allow for terrorist activities and oppression of its citizens.

Conclusion

America’s ethics as a community can slightly differ from each individual’s ethical standards. The reasons behind this discrepancy vary from being a highly individualistic society to being a society made up of pieces of other communities. While individualism is not a bad or unethical philosophy to live by, individuals must leave room within their own ethical standards and political ideologies for other individuals to interpret.
The United States has passed several laws that help both to protect each individual’s ethical standards as well as to establish communal ethical standards that do not sway or infringe upon those of every individual. Unlike other nations, the job of the United States government is to protect each American citizen individually; not to merely protect America’s lands or political interests.

The freedom of choice is by far the most used and protected freedom granted to United States citizens. This freedom allows for each citizen to choose which influences he or she will allow to affect the development and application of his or her ethical standards; whether those influences include religious beliefs, legal standards, or societal views.

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M., Eds. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.

Cassidy, S.L. (1995) Why bother? The fight against ethnic bigotry. Northwest Asian Weekly. Seattle, Washington. January 6, 1995. Vol. 13, Iss. 52, p.2. Retrieved June 4, 2006 from ProQuest Database.

Encarta (2006). Encarta Dictionary “Ethnocentrism”. Retrieved June 11, 2006 from http://www.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionaryhome.aspx

Trumbull, et al (1998). Bridging Cultures Between Home and School. California University, Los Angeles.; California State University, Northridge; Bridging Cultures Project, CA; WestEd, San Francisco, CA. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED) Washington DC (ED 425 131).