Therefore, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the action. The theory holds that morals are inherent in the law of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of god, or some other fundamental source. Thus, the theory recognizes objective facts about morality: moral claims are either true or false for everyone. One such relative theorist, Hobbes, argues for morality as a solution for practical problems. Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest.
Discuss the meaning of the term balancing conflicting interests. Critically analyse the extent to which the law does balance conflicting interests and discuss any difficulties it faces in doing so? First we must discuss the theorists and what they thought the law did about conflicting interests and whether the law is able to balance these or not. Firstly Karl Marx said that the law was made for the benefit of those who own the capital to ensure the continued oppression of the workers. Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another.
So liberty is constrained to maintain social order as opposed to freedom being epitomized in people as utility maximizers according to liberals. Therefore social order in put in place to provide certainty in an uncertain world. The second strand of imperfection according to Conservativism is moral as immoral or criminal behavior is deep-rooted in the individual. There is a ‘power after power’ conception according to Hobbes with human beings drive consisting of physical prosperity, power and avoidance of deprivation and doing anything they can to maintain or maximize these basic appetites so people cannot be trusted and crime is based on the consequence of human instincts. So it leads to the idea of people behaving in a civilized way if they are deterred by a firm government putting a tough criminal justice system so there is an invisible amalgamation of law and order with the role of law preserving order and morality.
This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action. Kantian ethics explains that for something to be good, the only true motivation behind it would be Good Will, with desire or instinct considered and the only purpose being to fulfil your duty and act morally. These moral principles are thought to be categorical imperatives which everyone should abide by even if they are of no benefit to them, There are three principles of the categorical imperative, the first being the universal law. It was believed that you should only act on a maxim, which is a personal law or rule. If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action.
According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality. Hume writes that it is desire rather than reason that governs human behavior and that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Kant’s conception of duty is based on the notion that all good ought to be done because they are intrinsically good. Duty for Kant is a basis of moral law. For example, one ought to preserve their own life or help feed the homeless because it is their societal duty to do so, not because they want to or that doing so makes them feel good. In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent.
Although all of the previously stated authors make strong arguments in their essays, some of their larger interpretations are flawed. An excessive emphasis on individualism in a society serves merely to bring detrimental effects to the society as a whole; while at the same time, a lack of stress on individualism can have equally damaging effects. Foremost, in order to contextualize individualism in the realm of society, it is pertinent to appositely define individualism. The term ‘individualism’ refers to the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence, in addition to the ability to rely on one’s inner beliefs to discriminate between right and wrong. The genuine definition of individualism, however, is not the issue of debate.
I would use the input from my employees to help me make the best decision for our company. I want the best for my company and my employees. I would like to take into consideration all the suggestion my employees have. With their suggestions and my insight of business together we should succeed all our goals and make our company succeed in every way possible. I want to be able to run my company and solve all the problems that arise the best way for everybody.
Explain what is meant by moral absolutism (25 marks) Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are either right or wrong regardless of the situation. This means that actions are either moral or immoral regardless of the beliefs of an individual. For example, in all circumstances for a moral absolutist war, slavery and the death penalty is wrong regardless of the beliefs of a culture that these things are practised. Even in circumstances where lying is involved, moral absolutism would still say it’s wrong even if it is for something good; it is considered intrinsically wrong. With moral absolutism, there are set absolute laws that are universal and always true.
Paine used Common Sense as a great tool to let the commoners and less educated to gain some insight on the role and purpose of government. Firstly, Paine makes a distinction between government and society. Paine states: “Society is everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish. Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own vices. Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best.” He goes on to say that “government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” Basically, Paine is stating to the common people that they have the opportunity to form their own representation of government and do it in a way that truly represents their wants and needs.