Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. 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 cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful 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 ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
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.
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
Charity is not an obligation, “giving aid would be a good thing to do but it would not be wrong not to do it” (Gilabert, 2007). In Singer’s eyes, these “traditional moral categories are upset” (Singer, 1972). Spending money on frivolous items when others are suffering and we have the means to satisfy or own needs and the needs of our dependents is in the eyes of Singer to be wrong (Singer, 1972). It is not an act of charity to donate money to those suffering from lack of shelter, food, and medicine it is in fact a duty that many are ignoring (Singer, 1972). The distinction between duty and charity seem to blur closer together for him than what has been traditionally set by society.
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.
Furthermore, we can exercise substantial control over how we do or don’t express our feelings and to whom we express them. Taking personal responsibility for when, how, and to whom you express feelings is a cornerstone of ethical interpersonal communication (Anderson & Guerrero, 1998; Fridlund, 1994; Philippot & Feldman, 20 Another reason we often choose not to express feelings is that we fear we could hurt or upset others. Sometimes we make an ethical choice not to express emotions that would hurt another person without achieving any positive outcome. Choosing not to express in some situations or to some people can be constructive and generous. Identify and explain at least two examples of irrational beliefs that Bryce holds.
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.
However, there are a number of exceptions where, if it is your duty to act, an omission can make you guilty, the justification of this is for public protection, especially protecting vulnerable people. The question is, is the balance between public protection and interference in the law correct? In other countries, there is such thing as the ‘Good Samaritan’ law, this means that if you were to see a stranger in trouble, for example drowning, it would be your obligation to try and help them, England does not have this law. This law could give more public protection as people would be more conscience of their morals and more people would be saved. However, the ‘Good Samaritan’ law does not follow the legal principle, the state provides well-paid professionals to help people in need, if untrained people are attempting to help, then they could put the victim in more danger, if more harm does come to the victim then many people could be held liable, therefore, as well as protecting the public, this law could also cause more harm.
Mister singer uses it here to suggests that no-one should sacrifice more than we can spare but donate what we can that will do the most good for the greatest number of people. What this means is that one should not cause harm to themselves while helping others. It is my opinion that Mister Singer’s ideas are fully justifiable. First it is true that we must endeavor to provide aide and end suffering: Jeffery Obler wrote that “To ignore the needy is morally wrong, and failure to help is not acceptable” (Obler, 1986).it is also logical to assume that doing the right thing has an effect not only on the one helped but also on the helper: it makes one feel good about oneself and enriches your soul, giving you something about yourself to feel pride in your