Phil 102

Ethics is a lost of Cause In casual consideration of ethics, it can be misconstrued to have no conflict with other facets of life. It is with this reason that in light of ethical consideration, an individual freedom and doing well just never goes in tandem. This is to say that striking a balance between the two is a seldom observation. In definition, ethics is said to be the regulations and guidance that are instituted to track and stabilize human behavior in a predictable manner. Thus, the role of ethics is said to curtail not only ones freedom but also to restrict ones capability. In light of this, ethics requires moderation to the extent that they do not constitute nuisance and hinders individual’s wishes.
Ethical consideration thus denies one the opportunity to double up the art of being good and exercising freedom simultaneously, one has to opt for one of the two if ethics remains your benchmark. In most cases, with the rational as stated in the ethical code of conduct be it conventional or statutory, one must forgo either of the two provisions. This is to the extent that if you opt to be ethical, you have to forgo the freedom segment, the same applies when you disregard ethics and acquire the freedom, and one will have to forgo doing well. I believe that this position is not outright in all the cases, since it only remains significant if a consideration to be made is held ethically.
Prominent philosophers did explain the relationship between ethics, personal freedom and the art of doing good. Aristotle brought forth the theory of virtue, in this theory; he started unequivocally that for one to be considered a good man, he must live a life that demonstrates his intentions to achieve what he considered as goals tailored to every man. Apparently, Aristotle was attempting to answer a question from Socrates that sought to know how man should live. According to the Socrates version, it was impossible to lead a life devoid of any form of conflicts; as he selectively resolves that egoism is one of the factors that make individuals lead a life of contradiction. The contradiction in this case is the inability to harbor freedom and remains good in pursuit of ethics.
In this case, being ethical shows that contradiction or rather the two provisions remain to be interchangeable depending on the individual’s preference. Since the principal role of instituting ethics is for the moderation of the human conduct and helping reach the most moral and objective judgment, it needs to be rationalize for the sake of making it impossible in comparing the two provisions-good and freedom. Indeed, the two provisions remains opposite sides of a coin under consideration of ethics, it is not possible demonstrates both sides given the diverse circumstances that present themselves to the individuals.
In conclusion, it is important that the freedom of the individuals be guaranteed just as they should be encouraged to do well. The question of ethics should not be overrated to infringe on any person personal space and freedom. Thus, we should take the sense of ethics with a pinch of salt and not to be caged in reflecting good or freedom only.