Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation. Just as the law of gravity is universal, Kant believed so should the ‘law’ of ethics. To Kant, doing the right moral action is a categorical imperative. Ethics should be without exceptions. For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
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
The Cynics believed that the very essence of civilization is corrupt, and so lived austere, unconventional lives. They distrusted luxury as a “hook” that always brought complications and frustration in to people’s lives. Happiness could only come from self-discipline
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
The myth is created by the following misconceptions about ethics: 1. The general conception that ethics is an ideal system, which is all very noble in theory but no good in practice. 2. Ethics is inapplicable to the real world or to one’s professional life. Because ethics is a system of short and simple rules like ‘Do not lie’, ‘Do not kill’ and ‘Do not steal’, this prompts that ethics is not suited to complexities of life.
I believe that this study was not ethical to conduct because it directly harmed another person just to get a statistic and a person would always get hurt based on the fact that human behavior follows normative influence almost every time. A reason for an ethics board to not approve a test like this one could be to just define ethics in itself, and use that explanation for your whole argument. Ethics is defined as a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions (Dictionary.com, LLC. Copyright © 2009). This means that there are certain things you can and cannot do to a human being just to get results for a test.
The traditional account of weakness of will is as follows: an agent is weak-willed on an occasion if and only if the agent does not do that which she believes is best. The agent thinks she knows what the best course of action to take is, and knowingly acts against it. However, Holton disagrees, he argues that weakness of the will involves revising one’s resolutions too easily. By this, Holton means it is possible to act against one’s better judgement (that is, being Akratic) but without being weak-willed. Holton, on the other hand, argues that the traditional akratic account is flawed.
One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Therefore this ethical system can be seen to have a greater weight over others as someone who follows it are doing so because they believe it’s right rather than following rules. This then also acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truths. However, this can also be seen to be one of the weaknesses of virtue ethics. Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas.
The three important things that should be avoided are dishonesty, not having a strong communication ethic with your partner, and having very little or even no common interest in likes, dislikes and social standings. In most cases if any of these three keys are broken it usually leads to an end of a relationship. Dishonesty can be defined as deceitfulness shown in someone's character or behavior. Therefore if one partner is dishonest to the other, the trust between two individuals is broken. Most things that is or is could said in the future can usually be questioned.