I am currently enrolled in a course called Environmental Ethics and Leadership. It's a pretty chill class; we meet three times a week, and basically talk about ethics-related things, and environmental-related topics.
My instructor mentioned a topic that I found to be interesting. He was talking about a man named Rushworth Kidder, who apparently came up with this concept of "ethical fitness". He explained it like this: Kidder came to the conclusion that the more you think about the ethical correctness of different situations, the better you will become at making the morally-correct decisions.
And when he said that, I though 'Well...not necessarily'.
I mean, the principle that Kidder offered seems to make sense, right?
But let me explain to you why I think that this theory is slightly (if not greatly) skewed.
I find myself to be an extremely moral-based person. My concept of morality, though, isn't necessarily based on the sense of "right" and "wrong"; it's more-so based on the idea of openness. I really focus on the concept that "right" and "wrong" differs across different populations, and thus make an extreme effort to make myself extremely open-minded and extremely politically-correct.
Now, I'm not saying that I am the perfect being or anything. I'm simply pointing out that I think a lot more about what I say to make sure that it aligns with what I previously stated to be my sense of morality.
Now, you may be thinking, 'Ohkay. So that lines up pretty accurately with Kidder's theory'. Well, yeah, but I feel like I am a pretty extreme example of the typical person. Many people don't think like me.
My argument against Kidder's theory is based on the concept that no matter how much one thinks about ethics, there are inevitably lapses in these thoughts.
I'll use myself as an example. One thing I have taken much time to think about (and even wrote a few college essays about) is the word 'weird'. It is so often used in our society, but what does it really mean? It is often used with a negative connotation, but yet, every instance that I have seen it used in has allowed it to be defined as "different". Why would you make someone feel bad for being different?
It is a word that I really dislike, and have attempted to eliminate from my vocabulary entirely. But, very rarely, the word does slip. And I use it in the negative connotation that everyone else uses it in.
This is what I am referring to as a "lapse". Despite my hours and days of thought, I fell back into what I worked so hard to escape.
Now, don't get me wrong; Kidder's philosophy does make some sense. But I feel as if it is not that simple and straight-forward.
So why do these lapses happen? I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons it happens is due to external factors, one big one being society. It is simply human nature to function in groups, and sometimes, we let the influences of these groups get to us, and change our ways of behaving, although we may not necessarily think that way.
Also, I also like to point out that thinking more about ethically-challenging questions won't necessarily make you "better" at making ethical decisions. Because so many different scenarios exist, and they range between so many different complexities, is is arguable that one can never become "good" at making ethical decision (also due to external factors, like the society factor I mentioned earlier). The world's issue don't exist like grammar mistakes on a standardized test, in a "once you've done a few, you've done them all" format. Despite the amount of ethical decisions you make, there arguably will always be more complex ones, that will always require great thought in order to answer (but of course, many issues that are considered ethical never really have a "right" or "wrong", so technically, you could think about them forever without ever reaching an "answer"!)
I really enjoy writing about such topics, so definitely look forward to more posts like this one.
Enjoy!
