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 more powerful it grows / the greater the need for humanity” (Lao Tzu, 31). When you’re in control you have to have trust in everyone and you shouldn’t have to prepare to defend yourself. To stay in leadership patience, compassion, and simplicity are qualities that are need. Machiavelli thought that good laws come naturally essentially because of a good military, or the preparation for war. However, Lao Tzu believes that good rules fall into place because you let everything run its course.
Ze Wei Jacky Luo Section 1 10/07/09 Final Draft The hardship of Cosmopolitanism Conversations are the most important tool for people to express themselves to others. In Chapter two of “Cosmopolitanism Ethics in the world of Stangers” written by Kwame Anthony Appiah, he points out that every culture, every society has its own view on what is correct or not. Appiah argued that positivism and relativism is not a way to encourage communications, because the idea of cosmopolitanism is that everyone in form of one community respect and share their ideas with each other. Appiah believe if everybody on this world are open minded and trying to lead everyone from different culture perform as a global citizen. Appiah also mentions that positivism had driven by two fundamentally kinds of psychological states, which are beliefs and desires. Both of them have different “direction of fit.” said Elizabeth Anscombe.
While ethical egoism sounds appealing to me, I do not believe that is my only duty. One should fulfill their self-interests while helping our fellow man when they happen to fall. Ethical altruism is an ethical doctrine that says each and every individual has a moral obligation to give help, service, or benefit others before your own self interests. In Anthem Ayn Rand’s idea of a nightmarish world is one of altruism in its extreme form. Every being in her society had to think about every other man before making their decision.
Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42). Since we cannot look at each client individually to determine whether or not Dr. Smith’s confidentiality policy is morally justifiable (it may be for one client, but not for another), we cannot properly answer this question using act-based utilitarianism. Rule-based utilitarianism, on the other hand, changes the basic utilitarianism’s principle from “everyone should always act to bring about the greatest good (i.e., “happiness”) for all
Humans’ personalities and way of life is greatly influenced by our moral convictions so to have discussion about how humans should live together without taking into consideration what shapes us, is not only a mistake, but it is impossible. Sandel is thus claiming that what current democracy is attempting to do is impossible and causes a paradox which creates unrest within the people. He suggests this is fixed by encouraging open deliberation as a part of the political process. What causes this deliberation to be open is that there is discussion about
Assignment Two Incorporating Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development into the Justice System P Strayer University Assignment Two Incorporating Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development into the Justice System I think that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. For instance, a theory that’s economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; same as laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well arranged they are, they must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. All people possess and inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. This is the reason that justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good that’s shared by others. Just does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a small amount are out weighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.
He believed as Absolutists believe today , we should be able to apply moral rules to everyone without making allowances for different people or circumstance , thus suggesting laws should be ‘universalisable’ . In an absolute moral system a rule applies to everyone. An example of Absolute Rules are the 10 commandments, rules which state what is wrong and thus what shouldn’t be done by all people of all cultures at all times; the 10 commandments state that ‘Murder is Wrong’ this gives us a moral proposition which if we are absolutists we can easily determine as right or wrong however, if we are relativists we would question the situation of the murder, the culture and the reason behind the murder. Furthermore Moral Relativism comes in various strengths and forms. Cultural Relativism can be defined on a basic level with the quote by St Ambrose ‘When in Rome do as Romans do’.
Typical words that could be said when in an argument are “that’s not fair”, “you are wrong” and “how’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”.The point Lewis is trying to make is that all humans, whether intentionally or not, follow some standard of behavior and expect others to follow it just as well. If there were no standard for right and wrong then Hitler’s actions would be considered acceptable behavior. Fault would be non-existent without a source of truth. In other words there cannot be wrong unless is a standard of rightness to compare one’s behavior to. Another point C.S Lewis makes when in The Law of Human Nature is that this law applies to all humans in all places and at all times.
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.