BPMN 3123 Management Ethics Individual Assignment No. 1 on Deontological ethics According to the writer, Kant believed that morality is a system of categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative is an absolute rule, a rule that binds us irrespective of our desires or any other consideration. Many people are antideantology because they don’t believe absolute morality. According to Kant, we are truly moral agents only when we act out of reverence for the moral law, for example : only when we obey the categorical imperative.
Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest. In the laws of nature, there is a covenant among people in which one of the parties must perform after the other through promise. However, promise in Hobbes’ system is not based on trust, virtue or any intrinsic purpose, because by the first natural right which is self-preservation, such justification seems as a luxury. Since one on trusts no one, promise keeping should be enforced by the fear of sovereign, whose job is to enforce the contract by punishing those who break it. Thus, the fear of punishment by sovereign makes promise keeping possible.
Should laws be based on morality? |PROS |CONS | |Yes, laws should be based on morality. |No, laws should not be based on morality. | |“There are two types of laws, just and unjust. One has a moral |Morality is a misleading concept, varies from person to person, | |responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” –by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in |basing laws on morality would mean imposing someone’s moral views and| |1963, the importance of morality in man’s actions even if the man might |values upon others, especially about sexuality –gay marriage etc | |have to stand against laws, morality is more important than legality |(Chappell).
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
Therefore the law did not resolve conflicting interests but imposed the interests of one group over another. While this can still happen today it seems that the law does try hard to make sure everyone is satisfied and everyone’s interests are accounted for. Rudolf von Jhering said that the law is the main way of ordering society, his views was that the rights of the majority should take precedence over the individual. He said that society is made up of conflicting interests that cannot all be satisfied and that the role of the law was to balance them out so the individual conformed to the needs of society. Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level.
Legalists believe that people have to conform, or adapt, to the law. They believe that conformity to the law is the basis to a strong government. If the conformers to the law are weak then the government will also be weak and vice versa. Confucians believed that the government leaders needed to follow the straight and narrow, do the right thing, that they must
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
In order to prevent further deterioration of the underpinnings of our society, we must act to discover and remedy the sources for our growing moral confusion. But I also believe we must act carefully and thoughtfully. As with any complex social problem, this ethical crisis will resist simplistic attempts at resolution. It is a mistake to equate a break-down in the function of the ethics with a deterioration of public morality. Our generation is not simply more self-centered or less moral than our predecessors.
Kant also believed in humans’ innate moral duty. Kant’s primary point was his theory that all of us have moral duty and that our conscience is what tells us when we go against this, through being guilty or shameful. Therefore, an action which can be classed as good or moral is one which fulfils this sense of duty. Kant also believed that reason was the way to reach realisation and that we can find out moral duty by thinking objectively. In addition, Kant said that we should not be inclined to do things and that we should think about things and try and apply his ethical theory before carrying them out, therefore, we should not do things because of our emotions.
“It’s true for me if I believe it,” says moral relativism. In the same breath, it argues “if it is acceptable in my culture to torture people (for any reason), then I am accountable only to the constraints of my society’s beliefs of what is right, and not to any other standard of moral truth”. In asserting itself, moral relativism embodies the concept of ‘that’s true for you but not for me’ and implies that this moral disagreement between cultures leads to the conclusion there can be no absolute moral truth. In this essay, I will firstly outline briefly the arguments for moral relativism before countering them with reasons why the arguments are implausible. Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth.