At the same to time I think it right to help the less fortunate and to recognize every person as they are, a human being. While I believe that every human being should have the pursuit of happiness and fulfill their self-interests, one should also show concern for our fellow man. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents should do what is in their own self-interest. Ayn Rand believes that this doctrine is one that every man should follow for fear of becoming a society that lives for others and only others, like the dystopian society in her novel Anthem. While ethical egoism sounds appealing to me, I do not believe that is my only duty.
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.
• The only moral rule of agapeistic love – thinking of other before yourself and acting in accordance to that – encourages people to act in regards to the well-being of others than themselves. Surely this makes society a better place? Weaknesses: • Excludes a majority of universal truths. • The idea of love being an absolute moral principle defeats the major point of situation ethics. 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.
He believes that one should live their life learning from their “mother and nurse and father and tutor” (18). One should follow in their footsteps “and if [they] obey, well and good; if not, [they are] straightened by threats and blows, like a piece of bent or warped wood.” It is his process of education. Protagorean moral education mainly gives a person habits, not knowledge, because they have to follow a certain pattern. Protagoras thinks by following these patterns, a person will be morally just. Socrates believes that there is moral knowledge but it cannot be taught.
Thus, we ought to treat each other with respect, when * (i) we ensure that our interactions with them are purely voluntary * (ii) we ensure that our interactions with them are mutually beneficial or are just and fair * (iii) we ensure that we take account of their needs, desires, and interests Morality is more than the promotion of the good, is about the quality of human interaction which is the attitudes we should have toward ourselves and one another. Kant provide us an ideal of human relationship. Kants’ FH requires us to treat all rational humans as ends, never merely as m means to an end. First, if everyone follow this rule, the society will become very harmony. Because whatever people do, they need to consider the action are respect other people’s purpose or not.
Butler suggested that the conscience adjudicates between these two interests and that as a gift from God, has the ultimate authority over ethical judgements and moral actions. In the eyes of Butler, the conscience is an intrinsic part of human nature and to dismiss morality is to deny that so called intrinsic accessory of human nature. This theory holds a relatively weak strength that it can be used to attempt to prove the existence of God and therefore religious believers would agree that the conscience should always be followed. G.E Moore also wrote “Good cannot be defined yet people know what it means implying some innate sense or intuition” suggesting there must be some inner sense of moral good and evil in what Butler believes the conscience. However there are very strong weaknesses that go against his theory.
Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral. For each of these philosophies, the question of living the "good life" is an intricate part of the belief system. For the Utilitarians, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is done entirely because of obligation. He also makes the distinction between motives, saying that an action can be "in accord with duty" and still be immoral.
The most significant difference of Adler’s belief from Freud’s premises was his belief that it was crucial to view the human being as a whole, not as conglomeration of mechanism or drives. “Individual Personality” was based on the idea of the indivisibility of the personality. In contrast to most psychological thinking of the time, Adler believed that, fundamentally, humans are self determined. Adler also believed that people have control over their lives and make the choices that shape them. Adler wrote that “individual psychology” breaks through the theory of determine, no experience is a cause of success or failure.
Alex Sale Ms. Mittleman 11/18/09 To Live Free From Society Or Die A Conformist Transcendentalism began when some philosophers started challenging the state of culture and society. Transcendental ideas are the keys to a better future. One must rely on his/her own self, in essence self-reliance, and from the reliance of the self comes self-assertion, and putting yourself out into the world. Transcendentalists believed that one should not rely on anyone else but his/herself, and that one should be free in his/her thoughts. The most important aspect of the transcendental self is the concept that one should free itself from society’s boundaries.
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