Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful as they are about facts and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of Meta ethics which holds the belief that ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
Analyze the Rhetoric Parts of an Argument to Consider * Identify the situation. * Identify the writer’s purpose. * Identify the major claim and supporting claims. * Identify the audience. Appeals to Logos = Appeal to reason * Consistency of argument * Clarity in asserting a thesis or point * Quality of reasons/evidence used in support of the point Appeals to Ethos = Appeal to Ethos by presenting writer as credible, knowledgeable, and trustworthy * Do your homework: know your subject.
The conscious decision is good in itself because the decision was not inclined by any desire but the duty to do what is intrinsically good. The volition will always have an intrinsic good, no matter what the inclination is. Kant claims that an inclination for an action cannot be respected as good, because it is not connected to the principle of good will, only the effect of the action. The notion of duty, “the necessity of acting from respect for law” (P.2), plays an important role in Kant’s moral philosophy. The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good.
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). As with scepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so.
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.
In a metaphorical term, we gain a lens, in which allows something to be more thoroughly understood. By removing ourselves from this area of our negative, quick to judge thoughts, we can perceive something through a clearer lens which reveals details which may have been previously unseen or assumed upon. We all hope though, a person is not saying persuading arguments for his own benefit. We must use our own opinions to determine our decision. Either way could make the judger or the person giving the opinion look bad, so it is almost dangerous.
Singer’s second argument is a touchy subject, in which he feels the need “defend” his viewpoint. In the given text, Singer provides several counterexamples to defend his position. The main point of his second argument is that Singer does not believe that the amount of people involved in a situation should affect whether or not a person should take action to prevent something bad from happening. His critics, who may be in disagreement to the pertaining subject, would argue that the number of people involved changes whether or not a person is responsible. Singer admits that there may be a “psychological difference” among the conflicting cases, but he also believes that it provides no excuse to a human’s moral obligation.
This path is right because it helps people to see that there is freedom from suffering. This path also is known for not being an expression of judgment but as a way of showing accomplishments and the effects of following the right steps. Right Understanding For one to have the right understanding they must know that right and understanding can be broken down into two different categories. The word understanding is mainly focused on the nature of a situation without being able to prove the reason for the nature of a thing. The right portion of the word right understanding is the analysis of a situation that when a person is at a clear mind set and able to speak the truth of a situation.
We are behaving morally, on the other hand, if we resist because we believe it is wrong to steal and that by stealing we would be treating someone else as a means to an end (e.g. for our own enrichment) which would be wrong in itself. Kant then goes on to argue that in an ideal world (one in which good was always rewarded and evil punished) moral behaviour (which would be in accordance with the categorical imperative) would always lead to happiness. In the real world, however, this does not necessarily happen. Therefore there must be