Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.
I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will. ” What you do out of duty does not include inclinations. Your good will cannot be judged by what you do, but why you did what you did. Inclinations are not respected, only acting out of duty can be respected. c) “Categorical Imperative: Those actions are right that conform to principles one can consistently will to be principles for everyone, and those actions wrong that are based on maxims that a rational creature could not will that all persons should follow” Kant says that an act is only right or moral if it is right for everyone.
Can one be moral and not believe in God? Have you ever judged or been judged unfairly? How about thinking someone’s a bad person because they don’t believe in God? In the world today we are beginning to see an ethical system being built based on tolerance and enlightenment; apart from God. A person undoubtedly can ne moral without believing in God.
Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” Clifford does not agree with holding “beliefs on the basis of insufficient evidence.” He means by “the ethics of belief” that when people blindly believe something, with no evidence for this belief, they would not become “honourable men” simply because their belief ends up being right. “They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out.” Meaning, when one acquires a belief, with no right to believing it to be true, no matter the outcome he is in the wrong. He describes his argument that however convinced you are of the truth of your convictions, you are not to make public criticisms of another man’s case, without first examining both sides of evidence, with the same “patience and care.” One example he describes is when a shipowner is about to send to sea on a ship that is apparently incapable and unseaworthy. He decides to sail the ship, despite the fact that it was in need for repairs and was very old. While the shipowner had many doubts about taking the ship, he chose to anyways, justifying himself with the thoughts that “she (the ship) had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that is was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also.” Surly he was guilty for the death of those on the ship, even though he had made himself believe that it was okay to send the ship to sail, disregarding his doubts.
Machiavelli displays his distrust of citizens in the passage, and that “because they [people] are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them”; therefore, he argues that it is unnecessary to be moralistically correct as opposed to appear so, stating that “a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him,...but it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic”. He considers having good qualities “and always to observe them is injurious”, as these traits may get in the way of the leader. It is essential for a leader to disguise his true characteristics, as to appear “merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright” is useful when such characteristics are needed, but they could be discarded when time calls. Mirandolla, in contrast, feels that
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.
The view behind this thought process is utilitarianism, and at first glance, there seems to be little to argue about. If morality is about choosing the good course of action, then what can be better than happiness? Certainly from the utilitarian viewpoint, the requirement for a moral act is that it is good for other people. The problem is that 'happiness' is a very subjective word, the weight of which is hard to pin down. Firstly, it is impossible to measure, and secondly no one is able to correctly judge the amount of happiness promulgated by any one action, primarily due to the fact that the full extent of the future cannot currently be known until it happens.
His skepticism exists because a priori “truths” exist don’t necessarily pertain to the real, material world. Knowledge gained by experience is also suspect for Hume. He believes that knowledge gained by experience is unfounded because inductive reasoning is based on the habit of constant conjunction, or the assumption that patterns from the past will repeat themselves in the future. He is skeptical about this because the argument for inductive reasoning is circular—you have to assume the conclusion (that inductive reasoning is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge) to reach the conclusion. In other words, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning.
According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. There is also an individual form of moral relativism. Thus, this is where morality varies between individuals, it is called subjectivism. Subjectivism, on the other hand, involves our beliefs or perceptions, in figuring out what is good and what is bad. Narveson explains subjectivity through morals, which he believes to be “subjective.” Narveson believes that “they are merely a “matter of opinion,” there being no such thing as moral knowledge, nothing about can be really correct or incorrect” (Narveson, MM, p. 3).Thus, whether peanut butter tastes good, for example, varies from person to person; for some people this is true, for others it is false.
This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.