Meta-Ethics is a branch of ethics which is concerned with the language that is used in ethical arguments. Many would say that if we do not know what we are talking about, then there is not point to ethical debate. This differs from normative which deicides whether or not something is bad or good and gives us a guide for moral behaviour. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics and tried to make sense of the terms and concepts used. The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean?
From where do property rights arise? Several philosophers have answered this question, each one elaborately expanding on their individual ideas. But Locke and Hume have taken on interesting perspectives to provide an explanation. Locke believes in the state of nature’s natural rights, but Hume’s understanding is that the very idea of “property” comes from causal need. Exploring the logic behind these theories, both philosophers make valid points about justice when it comes to property.
Existentialism and Gestalt Theory The principles of existential therapy are based on the theories of 19th and 20th century philosophers, Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. Existential therapy supports the idea that we are all directly responsible for our own lives over the idea of meaningful existence and predetermined destiny. Many other philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre, Gabriel Marcel and Ludwig Binswanger, also contributed to these ideas. Existential therapy is aimed at making sense of human existence and is generally not concerned with the client's past, but emphasizes the choices to be made in the present and future. The focus is on the nature of the human condition, which includes a capacity for self-awareness,
Badaracco draws examples from other writers on ethics and philosophy to reinforce how, which, and when to apply the teachings of such forward thinkers to everyday situations, with which we are faced. Each chapter examines and defines the right versus right decisions each of the characters face and how to ask the proper questions about that situation in order to conclude that will emanate the image they want to portray to the public. To fully understand how to tackle a right versus right conflict one must understand the individual philosophies and what questions need to be asked of the
Moral Codes and other mistakes. In this paper I argue for what has been termed ‘moral progress’(Rorty 915-27), and against fixed moral codes. By ‘moral progress’ I mean that humanity, as time has passed has come to be increasingly aware of the iniquities of past societies (and, in many cases, ‘present’ societies) and has striven to understand how morality can change to accommodate this understanding. Bertrand Russell, in his book "Human Society in Ethics and Politics", makes the point that moral codes are often dictated by those in positions of power (Russell 38-43). "Right and wrong" are defined with relation to the powerful.
Why might legal rules be insufficient for fulfilling one's ethical responsibilities? When I think of the term ethics, the first thing that comes to thought is a set of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek word ethos (character), and from the Latin word mores (customs). Together, they combine to define how individuals choose to interact with one another. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Ethics Though law often embodies ethical principals, law and ethics are far from co-extensive.
It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate. Taking central stage in the history of this debate are Hume and Kant and their examinations of the concept have been very influential. I will attempt to show how they unfold their different conceptions of cause and effect and how the two compare to each other. A note on Terminology: While Hume and Kant discuss more or less the same subject matter they do as most philosophers, discuss it in their own (or that most native to them) terminology. For sake of clarity I shall utilise the concepts of each in their respective sections.
“The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.” Evaluate this claim. The right to study and possess knowledge is a fundamental right for every human which is enshrined in nearly every single country’s constitution. However, the decisions that are made when this knowledge is applied could potentially have repercussions. At this point, ethics becomes involved in the use of knowledge. In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong.
Isaiah S. Greene Composition II 17 November 2009 Research Assignment Crime and Religion: Yes, They Go Together Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Right and wrong, good and evil are something people learn by living, but more specifically are introduced when with religion. Religion is something that is normally introduced at a very young age and is something someone either chooses to reject or embrace as they become older. For those who choose to embrace it, religion becomes a basis for choices made on a daily basis. There are consequences for certain choices that are made and religion sets the standard for these consequences, both on Earth and in Heaven.
Deontology is the study of duty. “The theory of deontology states that we are morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles/rules regardless of the outcome.” On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. (Plato). Kant’s ethical theories revolve around personal duty to make one’s actions produce a moral value and respect for other people. In the business and stakeholders context, Kant’s principle of respect for persons asserts that every human being is entitled to be treated not merely as a means to the achievement of the efforts of others, but as a being valuable in his or her own right; that each person is entitled to be respected as an end in himself or herself.