Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
Examine how both deontological and teleological ethical systems can be used to help people make moral decisions. Deontological and teleological ethical systems attempt to provide those who follow them with contrasting moral guides, recommending wrong and right concepts of behaviour. Deontological ethics derives from the Greek word, "Deon" which translates to "duty", for all deontologists, morality is a matter of duty. This ethical theory judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule, so essentially, deontology is concerned with the intent behind an action as well as the nature of the action itself. Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral.
The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that. However, things begin to complicate when we begin to answer questions, such as ‘why are Gods commands intrinsically good?’. The Euthyphro dilemma outlines the problems with asserting the goodness of God. In the great philosopher Plato’s text, ‘The Last Days of Socrates’, Socrates questions Euthyphro over the piety of the Gods. Which follows on from which?
A person must ultimately make the decision to be “good” in the presences of negative influences, it is what we as a society have determined to be “good” that sets apart the civilized from uncivilized societies. There are several ethical philosophies that hold merit and each has its weaknesses alongside its strengths. Virtue ethics, developed in ancient Greece with proponents such as Plato and Aristotle, is probably one of the most well known of the philosophies for its long history and relatively basic structure. Several other ethical views are built upon the basics set out in virtue ethics. A person inherently has some sort of primitive worldview and code of personal ethics.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
1. Examine the view that morality is dependant on religion. Morality is principles concerned with what is right or wrong. Those who believe that morality and religion are linked argue that morality requires religion, and all of our knowledge of right and wrong comes from God. H.P Owen said that “it is impossible to conceive of a command without also thinking of a commander” which means that if there are moral laws, then there must a lawgiver who set them.
These theorists believe erasing vices builds good moral character (Cline, 2012). Utilitarianism relates to normative ethics. This type of ethics stems from the English philosophers John Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The main premise of Utilitarianism is that actions are right if the promotion of happiness arises. Also if the opposite of happiness is a product of personal ethics it is a wrong
It is therefore known through reason that we should follow these natural riles from God, because the opposite is equivalent to ‘condemning the command of God’. By following God’s will and getting closer to achieving our destiny with God, we should act morally. Someone who has an error with their morality also has an error with their rationality as they are not avoiding evil like they should be in order to fulfil their
He defined conscience in this way as “the mind of man making moral judgements” and defined it as having two parts- synderesis and conscientia (decision leading to a particular action). Therefore, for Aquinas Conscience is being able to distinguish between right and wrong and to make decisions when a person is confronted with a difficult moral situation. Aquinas always put forward the idea that it was right to follow your conscience; by this he means that it is always right to apply your moral principles to each situation as well as you can. However, he does not mean that if you follow your conscience you are always right (as if your basic principles are wrong your conscience will also be wrong too) In relation to whether conscience is the voice of reason Aquinas highlighted that conscience is just reasoning used correctly to find out what God sees is good and is therefore not just a voice inside of us. However, it has been argued by some Christians that this rationalistic approach does not consider revelation that comes directly from God.
You can be honest without telling people exactly what you are thinking, because some things are better left unsaid. Trust / Reliability Trust is something I truly value in one´s character. I learned it the hard way that not everyone can be trusted and trust needs to be earned. Reliability is under the same category. In decision making one needs to have earned trust so the decision itself can be relied on.