Rationality, Sensibility and Ethics Immanuel Kant begins this excerpt from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals with the claim that nothing can be qualified as good except a good will. He supports this claim by giving examples of things we consider good, such as talents of the mind and qualities of temperament, which are not in and of themselves good because someone of bad will can utilize these qualities for bad things. There are qualities and traits which can be esteemed for their ability to service and facilitate a good will, but this does not allow us to label them as good in themselves. Kant states that, “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects…but simply by virtue of the volition” (P.1). 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.
This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering. Surely there are other ways to create moral development other than suffering. For example, preparing for exams or playing a sport creates challenges and problems to overcome which would result in growth. The idea of universal salvation is also questionable. If everyone makes it to heaven, what is the motivation to be moral?
Typical words that could be said when in an argument are “that’s not fair”, “you are wrong” and “how’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”.The point Lewis is trying to make is that all humans, whether intentionally or not, follow some standard of behavior and expect others to follow it just as well. If there were no standard for right and wrong then Hitler’s actions would be considered acceptable behavior. Fault would be non-existent without a source of truth. In other words there cannot be wrong unless is a standard of rightness to compare one’s behavior to. Another point C.S Lewis makes when in The Law of Human Nature is that this law applies to all humans in all places and at all times.
Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory. • It can be difficult to implement in both a personal sense and in society as a whole. No one can fully understand and take into account every single consequence of an action regardless of how intelligent they may be. Therefore no one can be sure that his or her action will cause no pain, and will be beneficial to everyone involved. • Situation ethics can even be a way to approve of what are considered in society as ‘evil’ acts.
Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong. Also this conveys there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as relativist thinker Mackie says there are no objective values rightness and wrongness do not exist in the world. alternatively this statement proposes that relativist have not defined what is right or wrong so therefore the relativist theory cannot provide a convincing reason as to why people should be good because they do not have a definition at all of what is right or wrong and they clearly recognise that there are different perspectives of what is right or wrong. No two people may agree on judgement, Sumner a cultural relativist suggests that ancestors have passed down traditions and they are just an experience of their culture. This conveys that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good because if there cultural says they should do something that is morally wrong, for example killing someone to use them as a sacrifice then in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong they are just following their culture and it doesn't convince them to be good.
He said morality was innate; a part of us (a priori), and it was our moral duty to carry it out for good, which must lead to God. Accordingly Kant says good actions should be universalisable and free, so basically when making our ethical decisions we should ask ourselves a simple question "What if everybody did that?" if the answer is no, then the categorical imperative tells us that the action is wrong. So if I cheated on my AS-level exam to pass and be successful in the future, this would be my maxim, however I would not want others to do the same and therefore this action would be wrong according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. My cheating pre-supposes that most people do not cheat even though they have the same reasons to cheat as I have.
The claim that moral values cannot be derived from facts is grounded in the idea that facts are descriptive and informative whereas value propositions are prescriptive and imply that we ought to carry out certain action or act in a particular way. In essence, while facts give us information about the world itself, values tell us how we should act. It is accepted that facts are cognitive and are therefore know to be true or false. However, non-cognitivists support the idea that moral truths cannot be known due to the notion that any individual who is making moral judgements is not articulating their beliefs about the way the world is. Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals.
Kant wanted to put good will at the very centre of ethics in which he formed the equation GOOD WILL + DUTY = A MORAL ACTION. Good will is the motive that produces our determination to be good people and our practical reason helps us get there ‘good will, then, like a jewel, will shine by its own light, a thing which has its whole value in itself’. Kant’s moral theory looks at evidence and tells you what ought to be done. Reason is universal. However to act morally then we must be capable of exercising freedom or the autonomy of the will .The opposite of this is what Kant did not believe in and this is heteronomy and that is something is right because its satisfies some desire, emotion, goal or obligation.
While these theories hold much in common regarding how they see morality, they differ greatly in their reasoning for why they think that way. Aristotelian virtue ethics focus more on the person as a moral creature at heart and their desire for morality to be the driving force behind moral behavior. An excellent example of the difference in the three theories in this instance would be a situation involving lying. Dishonesty is considered morally wrong by most theories of ethics, but all of the moral theories approach it differently. Deontology, as espoused by Immanuel Kant, would argue against the morality of lying from a moral absolutism standpoint.
Stanley Milgram Obedience is an essential instinct. Stanley Milgram’s essay, “The Perils of Obedience,” shows his us that humans will basically do anything they are told to and he tries to figure out why this is. Milgram proposes that people feel responsible for carrying out the wishes of an authority figure, but they do not feel responsible for the actual actions they are performing. He decides that the increasing division of labor in society encourages people to focus on a smaller task and to avoid responsibility for anything that they do not directly control. Conservative philosophers debate that the very basics of society are endangered by rebellion, though humanists strain the importance of a singular conscience.