On Ethics . . .

Perhaps because of our introduction to research ethics in last term’s proseminar, Eagleton’s and Jameson’s discussions of ethics grabbed my attention. Some of you bloggers have touched on ethics, virtue, etc., but what is this curious thing called ‘ethics’? (I am not convinced that either Eagleton or Jameson provide an answer to this question... nor do I think that this is necessarily an answerable question) Is ethical behavior collectively determined and enforced, or is it more of a personal matter? (Jameson touches on this point more than does Eagleton.) Perhaps most pertinently to us, what role do ethics play in the academic environment?
The OED Online (“the definitive source”) provides multiple definitions for ‘ethics’, predominantly connecting the term with morality. In his article, Jameson challenges such a link. Rather than being interchangeable conceptions, for him, morality and ethics are distinct. Likewise, Eagleton’s consideration of ethics deviates from the ‘definitive’ denotations that the OED proffers. Examining the work of Derrida and Badiou, Eagleton foregrounds the connection between politics and ethics (as opposed to morality and ethics). Specifically, he points to Badiou’s belief that ethics “have now come to displace politics . . . as a bogus humanitarian ideology of victimage, otherness and ‘human rights’ thrusts aside collective political projects (157). Further, he observes that the later Derrida considers ethics to associated with the collective, as they are “a matter of absolute decisions” (156). Eagleton’s analysis of ethics leaves more questions than answers, as the only conclusion he draws is that “There are problems, then, with Badiou’s ethics, as there are with anyone else’s” (160); but, to move to the second question that I posed, to what extent are ethics an individual or collective matter?
As I have noted, Eagleton indicates that Derrida’s conception of ethics is potentially a collective matter. For Derrida, Eagleton contends, “ethical choices are at once necessary and ‘impossible’, wholly mine yet ‘the decision of the other in me’, a kind of implacable destiny for which, like Oedipus, we are nevertheless entirely to blame” (156). The ‘other’ is not clearly explicated, but is suggestive of an external force which acts upon the individual. Jameson similarly indicates that ethics is a collective matter (151). Indeed, ethics are collectively determined, and internalized and enacted individually. In the university, a very specific guideline for ethics is established, imposed, and enforced, and the individual students must adhere to the ‘collectively’ established prescriptions.
To respond to the final question I posed at the outset--how does ‘ethics’ factor into academics?--is to also invite responses from my colleagues. Ethical behavior (responsible research practices, avoiding plagiarism, etc.) is central to academic life. Knowledge of (and adherence to) research ethics is a requirement of our doctoral program. A blurb on ‘academic integrity’ is included in the course syllabi we receive and will soon be distributing as teachers. But how have such ‘ethical lines’ been drawn and do academics truly buy into them? Does it become difficult to adhere to prescriptions for ‘ethical academic behavior’ when the concept of ethics is, as Eagleton argues, so problematic?