Defined by Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, as "the branch of axiology – one of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic – which attempts to understand the nature of morality; to define that which is right from that which is wrong"...

Ethics is a hot topic nowadays.

Books, magazine articles and syndicated newspaper columns have been written about it.

Entire audio programs and seminars have been built around it.

Recently, in a single month, not including tens of thousands of related searches using the term, the word "ethics", in and of itself, was searched on 37,111 times... just on the Yahoo Search Network alone!

This quest "to define that which is right from that which is wrong" isn't limited to individuals.

In an effort to determine "right" from "wrong", companies, government agencies and institutions have brought in ethics consultants, formed ethics committees and hired ethics executives.

Now...

Quite frankly...

I don't understand what's so complicated about it.

As I see it...

Jesus, the Master Teacher, made this whole matter of ethics very simple.

As a matter of fact, Jesus made it so simple even a child could understand it.

In Chapter 7 of the book of Matthew, Jesus is quoted as saying:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."

In Chapter 6 of the book of Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying it this way:

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

In other words, as my dad used to say...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Although some might find it a bit simplistic, this very simple principle, best known as the Golden Rule, has served for many centuries as the best definition of "that which is right from that which is wrong."

Not long ago, I was following a story in a local newspaper that illustrates just how far we've gotten away from this very simple principle Jesus taught us.

The story went something like this...

In a nearby town, the local elected town council was about to vote on a new contract with the police union.

Simple enough...

However...

One member of the town council had two close relatives, both of who were police officers, who'd directly benefit from the terms of the new contract.

When confronted with this fact by another town council member before the vote, he said he felt, as an elected member of the town council, he should vote on the new contract and that he could be impartial.

As you might expect, some of his fellow council members agreed with him while others did not.

This disagreement turned into several weeks of debate before the issue of his voting on the new contract finally came to a vote.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next