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. If an act is based on a generalized rule that a rational person could not will for all people to do than it is wrong. 3. What is the conclusion? The categorical imperative helps us decide what is right and wrong, and because we all acknowledge our ability to reason, this is the only thing that can
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
Though there are views that take true morality as absolute. Only rules that can be universally applied should be considered true moral rules. But such rules are incredibly hard, if not realistically impossible, to find. If we take things logically, a rule designed to create the largest amount of happiness as consequence to the action taken seems to be a very solid one. The view behind this thought process is utilitarianism, and at first glance, there seems to be little to argue about.
Explain what is meant by moral absolutism Moral absolutism also known as moral objectivism is the belief that there are fixed universal laws which are true irrespective of time, place and situation. This belief is that an action can be intrinsically right or wrong in itself, and this is not dependent on outcome, culture or time. Moral absolutism is a priori and objective; based on facts and logic, and on the most part deontological. It is always right or wrong. It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws.
We have the capabilities to eliminate the suffering, however, we choose not to, which is morally wrong. In keeping with this thought, Singer proposes two principles; the strong Singer principle and the weak Singer principle. His strong principle states, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance , we ought, we ought, morally, to do it.” In comparison, his weak principle states, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening , without sacrificing anything morally significant , we ought, morally, to do it.
Comparison between deontological and utilitarian ethics Deontological ethics Deontology is a normative theory attributed to Immanuel Kant, which focuses on the concept of the duty. It is concerned on fulfilling what is believed to be a moral duty without considering its impact to other people. It takes the stand that the duty defines the right actions regardless of the consequences. The hold of deontological ethics is that doing right is what conform the moral laws. According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty.
The Distinction of Virtue Ethics from other normative ethical theories In this essay, I will focus on a particular trait of Virtue ethics, which is “it has No Rules, or Too General Rules”. I will argue that this trait is the one of the main distinctions among other theories, and that this feature is an advantage to the theory. Virtue ethics is a normative theory where in the west, has its roots from the ancient work of Aristotle. The theory puts a strong emphasis on virtues and/or moral character, explaining that ethical behavior of a person is strongly related to the role and virtues of his/her character, in contrast the ways of deontology and consequentialism. Where in deontology the emphasis is on duties or rules, and in consequentialism it focuses on the concequences of one’s actions.
2 Hume's position in ethics is best known for asserting four theses: Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”. Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial. .
The theory is objective, it gives objective standards, independent of our own interests, cultures etc. Therefore it can be proven whereas the consequences and motives are uncertain. The theory isn’t consequentialist; Kant shows the flaw of Utilitarianism- a bad act can have good consequences. Kant’s theory doesn’t make this mistake. The theory is rational; it is not controlled by emotion.
“There are some concepts that are not drawn from sense experience" Discuss Sense experience, to an empiricist, is the only way in which knowledge, and therefore concepts, can be drawn. However to rationalists like Descartes and even to Kant, founder of the Copernican revolution, there are indeed concepts that are developed without sense experience. Empiricists, such as Hume and Locke fundamentally believe that there is no possibility of creating a concept without sense experience. For knowledge to become knowledge is must be justified as true and the only justification that is deemed accurate to empiricists is that of sense experience. Empiricism states that sense experience is needed so that it can be copied on to the tabula rasa, that sense experience, or impression, is the stored and recalled to create a concept.