Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
What is one of the two alternatives to the consequentialist response to moral dilemmas of trying to minimize the bad and maximize the good, do deontologists provide? Answer Rank the moral duties according to the highest principles Select the choice that has the best consequences Deny that moral dilemmas are possible Do that which exhibits the highest virtue 3
Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure. However if an individual gains pleasure through inflicting harm can we conclude that good and pleasure are one and the same thing? In short ethical naturalism is unable to define good, yet continues to claim that ethical language is based on objective truth. Non Cognitive approaches to meta ethics such as emotivism and prescriptivism argue that ethical language is subjective. A. J. Ayer claims that ethical language
Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphsyical This article by John Rawls discusses the theory of justice which was presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice.” Rawls espouses the concept that justice should be devoid of controversial philosophical and religious doctrines, and instead be understood as political, or actually practical in nature. He further discusses two fundamental principles which should guide this thought process, specifically, that each individual has equal access to basic rights or liberties, and that social and economic inequalities must be attached to offices and positions that provide the greatest benefits for those most disadvantaged. Rawls goes into great detail to explain that his theory of justice is designed, not to focus on the metaphysical or epistemological, but rather as a structure for informed and willing political agreement between citizens who are viewed equally as being free. He avoids the attendant issues that may be considered philosophical, moral or religious, by using the argument that there would be no way to resolve them politically. Rawls also speaks to the issues of social cooperation, which is governed by publically recognized rules that once again, focus on political practicability and the rational advantages that would extend from this cooperation.
He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.
Rawls’ Principles of Justice “Justice is the virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”(Rawls, p. 581). John Rawls’ book, A Theory of Justice, is an in-depth analysis and interpretation of social justice. Rawls presents and discusses two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the equality principle, which are the basis of his theory on justice. Rawls’ first principle of justice states “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others”(Rawls, p. 586). This principle is basically asserting that fundamental liberties come first over anything concerning justice.
Consider what is meant by justice. Discuss whether English Law achieves or fails to achieve justice Justice is an entirely subjective concept, largely depending on political affiliation, and previous experience of the legal system. Similarly to law, there is a vast amount of documentation providing different definitions and different theories of justice but is best described as what one believes to be the fairest course of action for both parties. In order to achieve justice, countries institute a legal system of some sort. Sir John Salmond defined law as “a body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice”.
Explain the concept of Relativist Morality. Moral Relativism is an ethical judgement. It is the claim that there is no ethical system better than another. It stems from the fact that to judge an ethical system, it must be judged by a moral standard. Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless.