Being In Agreement With The Standards Of Right Conduct
Ethics is sometimes identified by a set of inflexible rules and self-unsatisfactory moralization. They say the rules are rules — legal action is either fair or bad. Either he`s breaking a rule or he`s not. The word “ethics” is inextricably linked to issues of good behaviour in society. Etymologically, “ethics” comes from the Greek “ethos,” which means “character,” which indicates a concern for virtuous people, reliability and just behavior. “Morality” derives from “plus” or habit – the rules of conduct of a group or society. A first definition of ethics is therefore the analysis, evaluation and promotion of good behaviour and/or good character, according to the best standards available. In theoretical and applied ethics, philosophers and other writers have developed many theories to answer one or more important ethical questions. The number of theories and their many variations are too numerous to be listed here. However, there are many ways to categorize and group the many theories. For example, we focus on an important aspect of ethics, such as goods, rights or virtue.
or we can categorize theories according to how they justify ethical judgments. One way to get closer to ethics is to focus on one of the four recurring aspects of ethical action: rights, property, virtues and our community relationships with others. The ethical examination of correct behaviour involves (1) whether an act honours or violates the rights or duties of someone, (2) questions about the “goods” that should be pursued, which are often regarded as the harmful or useful consequences of the action, (3) the impact of the action on the “virtue” of the actors – their character and integrity. Of course, the historical sidgwick was not as bad or disturbing as I would have.  I exaggerate and make the worst case for an otherwise good person. I admit that few ethics advocates fit the model I have built here. But for me it is a matter of identifying a very real risk, which is that ethics advocates can be so concerned about taking ethics seriously that they forget to take the mechanisms of control of democracy just as seriously. My interest here is not Sidgwick as such, but sidgwick as a type or model for ethics reformers (`Innovator` is his preferred term) that pierces its followers in the sense of representations. Political innovators should manage the public in a way that diverts public attention from its differences in relation to traditional social norms. The ethical reformer in this school of utilitarianism therefore equalizes two truths: the general or popular truth about the falsity of unethical action (as in the case of lies); and secret or esoteric truth, which is known only by committed reformers, only unethical action (for example. B lies) is just under certain conditions.