Abstract
The philosophy of ethics is largely a matter of personal opinions regarding how individuals or groups interpret the way they feel about morality and righteousness. These sentiments have been expressed about scientific disciplines emerging into an institution of ethics with each discipline adding its unique flavor to the ethic perspective. As such, in reality, if one were to examine the true meaning of ethics it would be discovered that it is neither right nor wrong, but merely interpretations of sentiments. The tragedy concerning ethics, however, is that there are multiplicities of feelings, which are roaring to become institutionalized forming a major part of social structure morality. Then, the question could be asked, “Is this in itself fair? My position is, “No.” This is the reason ethically that we take a vote on moral issues, which may impinge deeply on the way we feel about a matter. The other question that arises again is whether this too is ethical. Conclusively, the philosophy of ethics is personal. In the following pages of this document, the writer will offer personal concerns regarding what is perceived as societal ethics about the disclosure of information.
Introduction
It is no secret that a secret is not a secret; it never was and it will never be. Nothing can be hidden. Then, why is there the morality of disclosure? This is my personal opinion concerning the disclosure of information in both traditional and contemporary societies alike. In researching the philosophy of ethics it was discovered that there are five distinct categories acknowledged by society.
There is meta-ethics, which is a series of theoretical assumptions about the establishment of truth. Then normative ethics is revealed whereby strategies are derived in making decisions concerning the right course of action. This subsequently creates the need for applied ethics to predict a path through which moral outcomes can be achieved. Moral psychology is expected to develop the obligation of conformity. Fifthly descriptive ethics highlights morals, which are upheld by society and those which are not. (Blackburn, 2001).
It is the writer’s intention to develop the argument that issues concerning disclosure of information prevalent in our societies today even though linked to these categories are in themselves moral sentiments, which are difficult to distinctively apply to either with any degree of conviction.
The Disclose Act
Disclosure policy issues emerge from interactions within the confines of home or family. Hence, family secrets exist, secrets among friends, coworkers, organizations, countries into the media. The notion of disclosure is clearly reveal to suggest that it arises from the individual’s desire to hide information from the other person, which personally is preconceived to be viable if used against him/her during future interactions.
The real question in evaluating this predisposition through the ranks of meta- ethics; normative ethics; applied ethics, moral psychology and descriptive ethics lies in whether any information no matter how discretely protected can escape the elements of disclosure. (Blackburn, 2001).
In attempting to offer assumptions to my proposition it is suitable to highlight a disclosure issue facing the nation and evaluate it using policies deemed relevant to its resolution. As recently as June 24th, 2010 a Disclose Act was passed in the House of Representatives. Its full name is designated Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. (“Disclose Act – HR,” 2010). (
The act is expected to disclose all spending for the fiscal campaign period. Examine its irony when sentiments are expressed from the moral conscience of the community.
“This new law is an unconstitutional mess that unfairly limits the free political speech of some Americans while giving an unfair advantage to unions and certain lobbyists — lobbyists including the National Rifle Association and Big Labor groups such as the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. “ (Hutson, 2010)
The contention is that this law represents ethical inaccuracies of the ruling politic seeking, actually, to cover up spending rather than to disclose. How ethical is this ethic in terms of meta-ethics; normative ethics; applied ethics, moral psychology and descriptive ethics? Where can it be applied? (Blackburn, 2001).
Further arguments are that while addressing a few aspects of the morality it deliberately for personal reasons excluded the larger donation groups from disclosing their contributions to the campaign. How ethical is that Mr. President? However, the writer’s personal position is that nothing can be hidden and scripture declares that whatever is done in secret must come to light. (“Holy Bible,” 1995).
To Defend a Killer (video)
After reviewing this video, my personal opinions on disclosure was awakened to marvelous truths concerning what defines a secret and how loyalty supersedes disclosure. My first alert is related to the priest’s interactive ethics, which led to revealing that he may not disclose the crime, but would be supportive to the extent of escorting the criminal to the electric chair. (Scalia, 2011)
Further he advises him to turn himself in with the assurance that he would not reveal the crime to authorities. This was confirmed when he granted his request to remain in the manse for a few days before deciding to comply. This moralistic confrontation from my personal position while commendable lacked sincerity on the part of the priest. Distinctively, he was applying moral psychology to the issue forging accountability for a crime, which only the criminal knew was committed.
There was no secret to be kept since he was encouraging the client to act from his position (priest) of morality. My question is that had the roles have been reversed would the priest have turned himself in? This is worth contemplating from the perspective of applied ethics. There were definitely conflicting perspectives with meta-ethics taking the better point of view. Truth was supposed to be the theme of this encounter.
Another major influence this video had on my perception of justice is when the attorneys began debating their morality concerning the case and the client as an individual. The law teaches that no one is accountable until he has been convicted. (Michie, 2003) Here is where a different perception of the crime and criminal takes precedence.
Major contributions were that no one knew about the crime apart from the priest who at the time had the moral obligation “not to disclose.” Since he was the only evidence and the only evidence the priest had was what the criminal told him.
Conclusion
Clearly, I observed how descriptive ethics was superimposed in the discussion whether to disclose or keep the secret. Legal assumptions are that there is no evidence to prove the client guilty apart from what is told to the system of justice. What then are the grounds for defending a killer? Obviously there is no case. Is this ethical? (Michie, 2003)
The Disclose Act referenced earlier in this discussion appeared even on paper to circumvent meta-ethics; normative ethics; applied ethics, moral psychology as well as descriptive ethics. (Blackburn, 2001); whereas from my enlightenment of “Defending a Killer” after comprehensive deliberations on all ethical positions, I realized that there is nothing to defend, but one’s own moral conscience. However, conclusively, I still marvel at this outcome of moral justice as it relates to disclosure to self and society, generally.
References
Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Disclose Act-HR 5175- The Congressional Summary-Freedom News. (2010). Freedomist. Web.
Holy Bible (1995). New York: American Bible Society.
Hutson, T ( 2010) Disclosure Act: Another Example of Unconstitutional Obamaism. Publius forum. Web.
Michie, P. (2003). Answering your questions about legal ethics. Legal ethics. Web.
Scalia, A (Producer). (2011). To defend a Killer. Web.