Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful as they are about facts and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of Meta ethics which holds the belief that ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
There also are arguments against Ethical Egoism. There is the argument that Ethical Egoism cannot handle conflict of interest. Also that it is logically inconsistent and is unacceptably arbitrary. From all the information provided Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory. I do not believe every action we take is intended to be self rewarding.
When we think of the word, “good”, many different ideas may come to mind, depending upon the context in which we consider the word. According to society, the word, “good” may be defined as: to be approved of or desired, or to have higher quality than the average quota. Another definition is to display or possess moral virtue. These are the traditional meanings of the word, “good.” You may have your own opinion, but your opinion may not matter to society. Society develops their own interpretations of the word, depending upon values and morals.
I call this view ‘Norm Descriptivism’, and argue that it best explains how judgments about reasons both guide attitudes and can be determined to be true or false via a priori reflective-equilibrium methods. Norm Acceptance and Fitting Attitudes Howard Nye I. Introduction Fitting attitude analyses of ethical concepts seek to analyze them in terms of the fittingness of attitudes like desires and emotions. For instance, A.C. Ewing (1939) may be read as arguing that we can understand judgments that a state of affairs is good as judgments that it is fitting to desire it.1 Similarly, Allan Gibbard (1990) argues that we can analyze judgments that someone has done something morally blameworthy as judgments to the effect that it is fitting for him to feel guilt for what he has done, and fitting for others to feel angry at him for doing it. I think that such fitting attitude analyses [hereafter ‘FA-analyses’] are attractive because they offer us a
Essay #1: In Support of Moderate Ethical Objectivism Pojman and Fieser put forth a theory of moderate objectivism that asserts that there are objective moral truths. They claim that a moral claim is objectively true when it describes an objective moral principle. An objective moral principle is a rule, which if generally followed, would optimally perform the function of serving human needs and interests by reducing harmful social conflict and promoting beneficial social cooperation. (Luco, Week 6 Notes, p3). This essay aims to prove ethical objectivism by using the form of moderate objectivism.
In doing this, I hope to provide an evaluation of the weaknesses in the relativist argument, in addition to an exploration of an alternative account of why the IBR has failed to integrate into certain non-Western societies that does not depend on an assertion (radical or non-radical) of relative cultural values. Cultural relativism is the view which advocates for ethical relativism on grounds of cultural differences. Kajit John Bagu defines it as “[t]he notion that a practice, value, norm and law of a society should be understood and appraised by people outside of that society only in that society's terms and standards”1. Human rights, in contrast, are defined within the articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states in its preamble that it is a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations (...) secur[ing] their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”. These two notions, at their respective extremes (extremes herein referred to as radical cultural relativism and radical universalism2), are at odds with one another.
Our actions, including the decision to choose to act or not to act, determine our personal identity. Choosing to perform an action, expresses the value we set on our human identity. The value we set on our human identity, and performing actions that clearly define those values, is the practice of self-constitution. Self-constitution is also referred to as self-integration, practical identity, and agency. Korsgaard argues that one cannot constitute oneself as the subject of a coherent, meaningful life unless one can act on a rational, non-arbitrary basis.
In this essay, we will try to answer the question on why we should live a moral life. In doing this we would look into what a moral standard is and what constitute a moral action or conduct. And finally, sum up with a conclusion. WHAT IS A MORAL STANDARD? There is variation in ethical opinions as to how we come to know right and wrong actions.
In this essay, I will focus on how ethical judgments can limit the methods available in the production of knowledge. An ethical judgment is defined as a decision that is made based on moral considerations of what is right and wrong. Using reason and emotion as ways of knowing, person or societies may define the meanings of ethics differently. Ethical judgments affect the methods used and to what extent a certain methods can be used in the production of knowledge. Some of the knowledge issues that I will raised in this essay are: “To what extent do ethical judgments limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in the arts and natural sciences?” and “Do ethical judgments limit the methods in the arts in the same way as it does for the natural sciences?” In the natural sciences, experimentation is most commonly used in the production of knowledge.
In other words, what is determined what’s right or wrong of a person’s actions depends on the laws within that society. (Banks 2009) In different cultures, to judge a person on their actions of what is right or wrong varies in a fundamental nature because the norms of each culture varies. In relativism, we cannot criticize individuals of their different cultures, but it means that if an individual‘s actions were wrong or immoral, then we must judge that individual by the guidelines of their culture and not by our own. (Banks 2009) In understanding ethical relativism, relativist’s state that there is moral wrong and right, but state that what is wrong for one individual may be right for another individual. In the study of “death row inmate set free”, in our society norms, the action to murder another individual or to rob a business, that person is arrested for that crime committed, brought before a judge, and then sentenced a punishment from the Judge for breaking that law.