The moral argument poses the question: "Where does our conscience, our sense of morality come from, if not from God?" It also asserts that if we accept the existence of objective moral laws we must accept the existence of who ever gives the laws. This is the observable fact that human beings sometimes appear to act from a sense of moral duty in which there is no self-interest or thought for the consequences of that act. (In an attempt to achieve Sumon Bonum)- The greatest of all rewards. Kant drew an important distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. 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 are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless 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
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.
" Morality requires a person to act only for themselves." Critically evaluate this claim? The statement Morality requires a person to act only for themselves emphasizes an egoistic view outlook, it aims to provide am alternative way or approach to morality which humans to belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well being of others. In contrast the statement "Morality that requires a person to act only for themselves" is closely related to Thomas Hobbes view on psychological egoism, Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and Ethical Egoism, highly dependent on self interest as the just and proper motive for all human qconduct. However the alternative approach which is a selfless concern for the well being of others is associated with Christian altruism, Mother Theresa, Jesus Christ and James Rachael criticisms of the Ethical Egoism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml I think that ethics is acknowledging the difference between something right and wrong; it is a thinking procedure of deciding whether something shouldn’t or should be done. In my opinion being ethical is saying something or doing something and keeping you integrity. It is being able to stand up for yourself and what you believe without any negativity that could be offensive to others. Not every person is perfect but when faced with a difficult decision, if you do the best thing you can do then that means you have good morals. When a person’s first instinct is that something is wrong and therefore doesn’t do it that is ethical, however if knowing something is wrong but still do it that is unethical.
I agree with Socrates when he says the unexamined life is not worth living for several reasons. Not only should we live our lives as if we are going to be judged at the end, but we should strive to live them to the fullest, making accomplishments, no matter how big or small, that will improve the lives of others around us and future generations. It is true that as a result of living an examined life sacrifices will be made, but these sacrifices are selfish in nature and would not be for the greater good. It is in everyone’s interest to better mankind, but if a majority of the population lived unexamined lives then it is safe to assume there will not be many contributions to the overall welfare of our civilization. However living an examined life will not only better yourself but will help those around you and guarantee your safety in heaven.
Consequential is a type of ethical theory; it’s built upon moral views of acts, rules, etc. purely due to the consideration of their consequences, where the norm of consideration is worked as the norm of non-moral goodness. Happiness is a part of acquiring what could be an unsatisfying truth that we do not have a solid handle of our control or impact in our world; giving into the greatest good, as well as, ignoring what can bring negativity. It is important to make the best out of life as possible that represent positive and negative, and take the rest as life wants to give it. The theory of “good” and bad is really not a matter of concern; we have our own particular views, so what can be bad may actually be good.
(Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
Ethics Essay Terence Lord ETH/316-Ethics and Social Responsibility May 5th, 2013 Denise Antoon Ethics Essay Deontology is a moral theory that accentuates one’s obligation to see to certain action just as the action, itself, is intrinsically right and not through any extra kind of shrewdness—such as the penalties of the action. Or in other words, it is the study of what is morally right or wrong. One simply may follow their obligations to another individual or society just because keeping one's obligation is what well-thought-out as ethically correct. However, one flaw of this theory is that there is no foundation or rational basis for determining an individual's sense of duty. For instance, an executive of a company may well choose
We only have one duty, and it is to ourselves. Since people don’t exactly know what others want, we should not try to please them. Instead, we should focus on pleasing ourselves. It is always moral to promote one’s own needs. Advocates of ethical egoism believe that the good of the individual triumphs the good of a society.