MP3 Eth Intro

When Roe v. Wade was overturned, there was a lot of debate about who decides what's right in ethical matters. Socrates believed that happiness comes from doing the right thing, measuring its impact on our soul, and that humans are naturally inclined towards goodness. Kant introduced the idea that good actions are rooted in duty, not concern for consequences. Mill expanded on this with utilitarianism, which states that the morally right action is the one that produces the most good. However, measuring happiness and defining good can be complicated. Dr. David Welsh discusses ethical behavior in the business world. This is the Ethics Intro. When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, America went crazy. Everyone had something to say about it, as the sound of the Supreme Court changing its mind reverberated throughout the nation. But, like any decision ultimately based in opinion, who decides what's right? On one side, pro-life advocates believe they're doing the work of morality's creator, while the other fights the generational battle for women's rights. So who's right? Or is anyone? Socrates was one of the originals, dating back to 5th century BCE, and his writings are only available through the memories of his students. Those that survived, however, make up some of the standards we continue to live by. His ethical way of life consisted of three principles. One, happiness is achieved through doing the right thing. Two, happiness is measured through the long-term impact it has on our soul or psyche. And three, human action is naturally geared towards goodness because that is the evolutionary purpose. In other words, we're naturally good beings, but we don't always act that way as a result of ignorance. Obviously, there are holes here, because there are people who do bad things on purpose. But the point remains, we are happiest when we embrace our naturally-in-kind ability to be good. Kant reinvented this idea centuries later in 1747 with The Metaphysics of Morals, whatever that could possibly mean. He introduced the categorical imperative that good relies on the intentions of one's action being rooted in duty, as opposed to concern about the consequence of said action, especially towards oneself. It's considered a good duty when we act in a way that we would want others to act towards us in the same situation. Sound familiar? I saw the golden rule hanging in all of my classrooms until at least the sixth grade, and for good reason. It just makes sense. John Stuart Mill took this a step forward when he coined utilitarianism in 1861, which takes one-on-one kindness to a societal level. Utilitarianism states that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. Those actions are defined by the greatest happiness principle, which says an action that produces happiness is more rewarding, and an action that takes happiness away is not rewarding. These ideas are great in theory, but we all know how complicated feelings are, and every moral decision has some emotional investment. Different actions bring different people happiness, and how do we measure which action brings more happiness? The greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people might seem impossible to achieve, especially since good means something different to everyone. I interviewed Dr. David Welsh about how ethical behavior looks in the business world. He teaches with the Department of Management and Entrepreneurship at ASU, but before that, he earned his J.D. from the University of Utah. Needless to say, David has seen his fair share of good and bad behavior, and continues to educate us on spotting the difference.