Some definitions of Universal Ethics

Ethical dilemmas can arise when conflicting individuals with different group frames of reference understand issues parochially and make different judgments and subsequently construct reasons to justify their actions. Ethical problems, as this article clearly demonstrates, cannot be solved by argument alone, which is nearly always merely rationale to support fixed conclusions. All human beings are driven by the same innate ethical imperatives: to achieve freedom and equality within their recognized ethical cooperative groups through the practice of reciprocity. In this case, the ethical problem is caused by different factual frames of reference coupled with a limited concept of the ethical cooperative group to which individuals owe responsibility. Clearly neither the Americans nor the Iraqis include the other within their recognized ethical cooperative group. Ethics is very much about recognizing the individual's responsibility to the widest possible cooperative groups and combating the conflict that naturally arises between groups by widening the individual's ability to see both sides of the issue and to know the truth. Students should see that frame of reference and disagreement about the facts, not fundamental ethical incompatibility, is at the root of the problem. 

Freedom and equality are the two basic human ethical drives. All humans have a fundamental ethical urge to be free and to remain equal with other members of the group. But, since all civilized societies are hierarchies, often displaying enormous degrees of inequality, a potentially troublesome ethical dilemma exists. Inequality, whether real or perceived, is a powerful force threatening disruption in the stability of all cooperative groups. The rapidly growing gap between rich and poor is a worldwide ethical problem today. Efforts to address this equity issue in China on behalf of the rural poor threatens the freedom of others, particularly successful urbanites, to own and dispose of wealth. This could result in social unrest. One of the most basic ethics concepts is the idea of fairness. People generally believe that fairness is essentially synonymous with equality and that justice demands that people be treated fairly and equally. However, deciding exactly what equality means in specific situations is difficult because individuals have different perspectives and bring different frames of reference to the table. Students should be encouraged to explore, within the context of their own lives, the relationship between fairness/justice and equality.

A Growing Unity Against Israel
Palestinian Militant Groups, Once Rivals, Forge Alliances
Taking advantage of group synergies, human beings pursue their individual self-interest through social participation. This associative drive is implanted in all social animals and is the result of biological as well as cultural evolution. Maintaining equality within these groups as well as within larger combinations of groups is fundamental to the innate human ethical sense because it helps to ensure freedom. The tactic of forming alliances and coalitions to resist domination is a natural instinct even practiced by apes and chimpanzees. In this article, coalitions of groups pursuing similar goals can be seen in the Palestinian struggle against Israeli dominance. It is important for students to reflect on the process of emerging cooperation among the Palestinian militant groups and not to become sidetracked into debate about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict itself, which, while an obvious tragedy, is not the focus of this strategy. The article is an excellent primer on the ethical differences between Palestinian militant groups and is an example of the way human beings pursue individual objectives through associative behavior. Human beings are naturally inclined to pursue compromise and consensus as solutions to ethical impasses, which is evidenced by the Palestinian effort to find common ground on which to build cooperation. The factors that promote and prevent this should be the subject of this ethics lesson.

Human beings naturally pursue self-interest through participation in groups. In so doing it is natural to cooperate with others to achieve individual success. While the ultimate end may be selfish, the preferred means is associative and cooperative, causing both individual and communal values to interact in every human ethical decision. Evolution also acts through the application of a stabilization strategy (ESS) to favor behavior that balances power within and between individuals and groups. This process can be seen in the chaos presently engulfing Haiti. Anarchy is inconsistent with the innate human ethical sense, which seeks cooperative association with others. The vacuum of anarchy and the threat of instability are automatically resisted by spontaneously arising organization as groups spring up and begin to balance each other through the formation of coalitions. Naturally forming cooperative groups in Haiti demonstrate the response of innate human ethical instincts to the obvious advantages of teamwork in times of trouble while the international community is urged to intervene to restore stability. Balancing freedom with group responsibility is a never-ending human ethical challenge. The recent events in Haiti can stimulate discussion of these fundamental ethical concepts. It is important for students to consider the relevance of this for their own daily lives.

Human beings naturally pursue self-interest through participation in groups. In so doing it is natural to cooperate with others to achieve individual success. While the ultimate end may be selfish, the preferred means is associative and cooperative, causing both individual and communal values to interact in every human ethical decision. Evolution also acts through the application of a stabilization strategy (ESS) to favor behavior that balances power within and between individuals and groups. This process can be seen in the chaos presently engulfing Haiti. Anarchy is inconsistent with the innate human ethical sense, which seeks cooperative association with others. The vacuum of anarchy and the threat of instability are automatically resisted by spontaneously arising organization as groups spring up and begin to balance each other through the formation of coalitions. Naturally forming cooperative groups in Haiti demonstrate the response of innate human ethical instincts to the obvious advantages of teamwork in times of trouble while the international community is urged to intervene to restore stability. Balancing freedom with group responsibility is a never-ending human ethical challenge. The recent events in Haiti can stimulate discussion of these fundamental ethical concepts. It is important for students to consider the relevance of this for their own daily lives.

It is an innate human ethical impulse to protect the safety and stability of what one identifies to be his or her ethical cooperative group. These groups, which often conflict, change in relation to the specific circumstance. The same person might see only his or her immediate family as the ethical group in one instance but recognize all of humanity in another. Ethical decisions are made within the context of these groups and are driven by an innate ethical sense that generally sorts out right from wrong. A fundamental of this ethical sense is an intrinsic understanding of the reality of group synergy, which gives fitness advantages to individuals who cooperate with others. People naturally want to cooperate within the groups recognized as important to them and they expect cooperation from other members of the group. Because of this, loyalty has emerged as a bedrock human ethical expectation, and its opposite, betrayal, is entrenched as one of the most onerous of naturally unethical behaviors. The medical journal that owes loyalty to the scientific community as a disseminator of research findings, betrays its trust when it acts to suppress findings in order to protect the financial interests of its advertisers. The editor who admits that his own publication failed in this trust is ironically expected to be fired because he was not loyal to his magazine. This seeming contradiction is the result of the natural human innate ethical sense that judges all ethical behavior in terms of recognized cooperative groups and disregards anyone outside the groups. Students should analyze the various groups that govern their own ethical lives and how the notion of "right" changes in relation to who is involved. This is a critical concept for students to grasp and is a step toward learning to act more ethically by expanding the scope of what one recognizes to be his or her ethical cooperative group.

Freedom and the pursuit of self-interest within social groups is a fundamental human ethical imperative. In the interest of peace and stability, all ethical groups, from the family to the nation, establish rules to regulate and limit individual freedom. Students need to consider the difference between rules and ethics. Rules are sometimes, but not always, ethical. Rules are primarily intended to internally stabilize the ethical group and to protect it from outside threats, but not necessarily to promote the individual human ethical need for freedom and equality. This article offers an opportunity to examine the contrast between the innate human ethical sense and the rules imposed by the extended cooperative ethical group through various aggressively moral tactics from social pressure to law. It is important not to follow a false trail by debating the merits of performance enhancing drugs. The lesson here is to help students see that ethics is an internal, not an external, standard of authority and that the interests of both the individual and the group must be reconciled.

The innate human ethical drive to achieve group equality is muted by the tendency of people to psychologically "encapsulate" themselves within roughly equal strata and to not compare themselves with people in other strata. This social phenomenon historically accounts for the enduring existence of relatively stable, but widely unequal, class structure in most societies. This hierarchy is reinforced by steady doses of propaganda referred to as "aggressive moralism," which is intended to stabilize the status quo. People don't generally perceive the socio-economic gap between classes as inequality. "Equality under the law" is the only broad ethical expectation that has, in American society, resisted encapsulation while the aggressively moral mantra of "equality of opportunity" masks the real existence of massive socio/economic inequality. This attitudinal protection for broad social stratification can break down because the need for equality is a fundamental innate human ethical imperative. Martha Stewart's apparent flaunting of wealth and privilege in the courtroom, the universal American arena of equality, could unleash a backlash against her. This case should serve as a vehicle to help students examine their own expectations for equality and how the two basic human ethical drives, freedom and equality, can conflict. The teacher should challenge students about why they differentiate between political/legal equality and socio/economic equality.

All humans seek self-fulfillment through participation in social groups and judge their ethical responsibilities from the frame of reference of these groups. This group ethical standard, while internally stabilizing, promotes external confrontation leading to conflict since all group ethics are by definition exclusionary. Conflicts between groups cause threats, which stiffen internal group solidarity, and help justify disregard for outsiders who quickly evolve into perceived enemies. This is a part of the innate human ethical sense and this tragic interplay of human ethical factors has historically generated terrible human atrocities. Students should analyze the various groups that govern their own ethical lives and how the notion of "right" changes in relation to who is involved. People automatically try to act ethically within their recognized ethical cooperative groups but do not feel obligated to do so outside of them. In many respects the whole notion of ethical responsibility all but disappears. This is a critical concept for students to grasp and is the first step toward learning to act "more" ethically by expanding the scope of one's ethical cooperative group.
The weapon of human ethics is reciprocity. It is a universal human norm practiced for all time and in all cultures. It represents the innate human ethical sense of how to behave and how best to protect freedom and equality. It emphasizes give and take and represents the ethical ideal of fairness. It is quintessentially human to pay back good for good and bad for bad. Everyone understands this and anticipates reciprocal responses to their actions. Because reciprocity is a credible human expectation, people often use the threat of it as a deterrent and as a way to avoid ultimate conflict. It is critical for students to think through this urge to reciprocate, which resides in all of us, and our propensity to posture as a defense mechanism. Keep in mind that reciprocity is the engine of fairness and justice and that it is the only natural human ethical weapon. It will be employed as a matter of natural response; the ethical lesson is to learn to temper it through reason since it can easily create vicious cycles.

People routinely pursue individual self-interest through participation in groups. These associations, called ethical cooperative groups, define the natural limits of accepted ethical responsibility. Human beings are not intrinsically altruistic; they cooperate with the implicit expectation of reciprocal benefit. We are all urged to help close relatives and friends because we easily recognize the promise of reciprocal benefit, but this altruistic inclination diminishes rapidly as the distance between people increases, until little or no obligation is felt toward strangers and foreigners. This is a natural part of the innate human ethical sense since it is difficult to see benefit accruing from distant and impersonal associations. Students need to examine this reality and begin to expand the ethical cooperative groups to which they recognize a responsibility. Analyzing the reasons why the United States should or should not rebuild the Iraqi healthcare system can provide a vehicle for examining the roots of this innate human understanding of ethical obligation. The article lists some standard self-regarding reasons, both to help or not to help rebuild the Iraqi healthcare system, based on a parochial sense of ethical group responsibility. The teacher should challenge students to think beyond their immediate ethical cooperative group (nation) in their search for self-interest to find the advantage in cooperating with larger and more impersonal groups (world).

All humans have a sense of what is fair that is linked to the innate ethical sense of equality. Fairness and justice are rooted in equality. The judgment as to what is or is not fair is a natural tool used by all people to determine if an action is right or wrong. The ratemyteachers web site is inherently unfair to teachers being criticized anonymously by students through the site because it makes no provision for these teachers to respond and thereby denies their equality. Students will inherently recognize this but will also see the sometimes need for anonymity and this will provide a pivotal point for the lesson. Intent is also recognized as an important determinant of an action's merit and can alter the human ethical assessment of it. While professing to be motivated by the desire to improve education, the article indicates that the intent of the site's creators was to make a profit. This results in an assault on the innate sense of equality since it can be seen as taking advantage of other people for personal gain. This article will generate considerable discussion and will challenge the teacher in directing meaningful discussion.

The present nuclear standoff between North Korea and its neighbors can illustrate some fundamental innate human ethical characteristics. The quest for freedom and equality within group associations is the motor of human ethics. Reciprocity is the basic human ethical tool to ensure freedom and equality. In the case of North Korea, the drive to develop a nuclear deterrence is seen as the best strategy to protect independence and sovereignty within the world community. Nuclear deterrence itself is the ultimate threat of reciprocity. The North Koreans believe they have as much right to possess nuclear weapons, as does the United States or any other country. The world community disagrees and has established non-proliferation rules to prevent this. All groups create rules to promote stability. These rules sometimes conflict with the innate human ethical sense causing dissonance within the group as individuals become inclined to disregard the rules. This, in the world community, is the case of North Korea; it is no different from that of an individual person in any ethical group. The group then tends to try to force the noncompliant individual to conform. This group pressure is referred to as aggressive moralism; it will escalate, as needs be, from social pressure to force. Aggressive moralism is not ethics. Students should draw parallels between these events in world affairs and their own personal experiences. Be sure students understand the history of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The need for freedom and equality is an innate drive fixed in the psyche of all humans. People naturally resent efforts to control them and will resist through the strategy of alliance formation and the practice of reciprocity. Payback is the only natural human ethical weapon to defend freedom and equality. Everyone uses it to one degree or another. These same root human ethical practices are relevant to all human associative behavior. In this regard, albeit more sophisticated, world leaders are no different from school children. Everyone has the same intrinsic belief about how to best behave in social settings. In power-balancing alliances, the loyalty of friends is expected. Being betrayed by a friend is one of the most onerous assaults on this innate ethical understanding of what is right. All of these human ethical elements are in play in the recently soured relationship between the United States and France. As a long time traditional friend and ally of the United States, France was expected to "get in line" and support American efforts in Iraq. Their failure to do so was viewed as a betrayal. French resentment toward American efforts to dominate has urged them to defend their freedom and equality through the formation of a coalition to counter American power. Students should examine events in their own personal experience and compare them with the actions of these world leaders to see the universality of the human ethical understanding, which will help them to understand that most ethical conflict results from different frames of reference rather than from different ethical standards. The issue of who was "right" vis-à-vis Iraq is not relevant and should not become the focus of discussion.

All human beings have an innate ethical drive to maintain equality within their recognized ethical cooperative groups. Ordinarily, however, people only tend to compare themselves with others they consider to be " like themselves." Poor people in poor nations do not normally expect or seek equality with affluent people in rich nations. This social phenomenon, which blunts the innate human ethical drive for equality, is called "encapsulation". It promotes peaceful coexistence in highly stratified societies and is probably part of an evolutionary stabilization strategy. The World Trade Organization, however, is an artificial ethical cooperative group that brings wildly unequal elements together in an environment where equality is expected and the "have-nots" do compare themselves to the "haves" and demand equality. The evolved strategy to achieve this is to form alliances and coalitions among the weaker to balance the power of the would-be bosses. This can clearly be seen in the actions of the poor nations as they attempt to balance the power of the U.S. and the E.U. The ethics lesson here is to examine the innate human desire for equality and how it manifests itself in different social settings. The concept of "encapsulation" is also important for students to understand.

In the interest of peace and stability, all ethical groups, from the family to the nation, establish rules to regulate and limit individual freedom. Students need to consider the difference between rules and ethics. Rules are sometimes, but not always, ethical. Rules are primarily intended to internally stabilize the ethical group and to protect it from outside threats, but not necessarily to promote the individual human ethical need for freedom and equality. This article offers an opportunity to examine the contrast between the innate human ethical urge to be free and the rules imposed by the extended cooperative ethical group through United States Federal law, which can conflict with this human ethical drive for freedom. It is important not to follow a false trail by debating the merits of copyright laws. The lesson here is to help students see that ethics is an internal, not an external, standard of authority and that the interests of both the individual and the group must be reconciled.

Ethical dilemmas can arise when conflicting individuals with different frames of reference understand issues parochially and make different judgments as to what is fair. The appeal to equity is fundamental to both sides in the ethical dispute concerning whether an HIV positive man ought to be hired by the State Department. This issue, as described in the article, clearly shows that people are driven by the same ethical imperatives, in this case a demand for equality, and that they subsequently construct reasons to support their goals. Ethical problems cannot be solved by argument alone, which is nearly always merely rationale to support innately fixed conclusions. In this case, the ethical problem is caused by different frames of reference coupled with a limited concept of the ethical cooperative group to which individuals owe responsibility. Is the group defined as only to include present State Department diplomats, or are all American citizens part of the group? Ethics is very much about recognizing the individual's responsibility to the widest possible cooperative groups and combating the conflict that naturally arises between groups by widening the individual's ability to see both sides of the issue.

Their natural ethical sense urges all humans to seek individual happiness within social groups. Ethical cooperative groups are like concentric circles around the individual. The most immediate circles of family and then friends and professional associates command the greatest claim to responsibility. This sense of obligation diminishes rapidly as the circles widen, until little or no obligation for the welfare of "strangers" or "outsiders" is felt. A sense of reciprocal obligation and loyalty works to stabilize and strengthen these groups.

Everyone is motivated by the same innate ethical instinct to protect the interests of other members of their recognized ethical cooperative groups thus leading to the belief that Congressman Janklow will benefit from his insider status and that his friends in government will naturally help him. People believe this because they themselves are innately urged to help their own friends.A corresponding human ethical drive to maintain equality demands that Janklow not be shown favoritism; anger arises because people believe he will get special treatment that they themselves would not get. Understanding human ethics begins with self-assessment and clarification of one's own innate ethical imperatives. Ethics education is very much about widening one's sense of the extent of his or her ethical cooperative groups. In this case the narrow and more intimate group is expected to prevail over the larger and more impersonal community interest and this accurately reflects the innate human ethic. It is important for students to increase their sense of responsibility to the wider and less personal groups to which they belong. Finding ways to relate these concepts to the everyday lives of students should be the focus of class discussion.
The weapon of human ethics is reciprocity. It is a universal human norm practiced for all time and in all cultures. It represents the innate human ethical sense of how to behave and how best to protect freedom and equality. It emphasizes give and take and represents the ethical ideal of fairness. It is quintessentially human to pay back good for good and bad for bad. Human beings also define their ethical responsibilities in terms of cooperative groups, which are naturally understood to often be in conflict with other groups whose members are not usually given ethical status. Ironically, this interplay of human ethical factors has historically generated the worst human atrocities. Today terrorism stands as a stark reminder of the mindless human need to reciprocate. It is critical for students to think through this urge to "get even", which resides in all of us, and our propensity to disregard strangers in ethically assessing our actions. The recent bombings in Madrid illustrate as well as anything can the negative potential of this seminal human drive to seek freedom and equality through reciprocity. To promote ethical growth, the teacher should try to direct the discussion to student's personal experiences with these feelings rather than be drawn into a debate about terrorism itself. Remember ethics is an ingrained sense of what is the right and what is the wrong way to act. It is not rooted in reason or logic.

Ethics is an innate sense of how to behave that has evolved over eons of human experience with associative life. It is the natural way of protecting individual freedom within social groups by constantly acting to achieve and to maintain equality within those groups. Equality is intrinsically understood to be the bedrock of fairness and justice, which is in turn seen as the final defense of freedom. All people automatically act on these premises. Ethical dilemmas arise when conflicting individuals with different group frames of reference understand issues parochially and make different judgments as to what is fair. The issue discussed in today's article is such a case. The lesson here should be to help students to understand that all people are driven by an essentially identical ethical drive to seek equality as the foundation of fairness and freedom. Although it is instructive to understand the reasons that support each side, it is important not to simply debate the issue. Debates promote the belief that right and wrong can be determined by artful argument. Students need to learn that in almost all cases nearly all people act in ways that they can justify to be right and good. Normal human beings rarely, if ever, act with conscious evil intent.
This leaves a diverse society with the need to sort out ethical disputes in a manner that ensures the prime facie equality of all. In a constitutional democracy this is the function of law. Even if there is no ethical distinction, it is still necessary to decide what the group is going to consider right and wrong. In the story, Nasrudin must decide, just as the County Council must decide about the Douglass issue. Discussion of how the "justice" system responds to these challenges obviously opens enormous opportunities for expanding this lesson. However, the most basic ethics idea here involves understanding that there is no essential ethical difference between the two sides, and the enforcement of rules is necessary to solve the dilemma.

Average user rating