Self interest must be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right’ Assess this view. If self interest was to be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right would it mean that I must disregard myself when deciding which actions are morally right despite the consequences? Subsequently, whether I act without regard to myself has no effect on whether the action is moral or not. However, is it rational to not take into account the effect actions may cause? Is it possible to act in a way which also benefits me?
I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will. ” What you do out of duty does not include inclinations. Your good will cannot be judged by what you do, but why you did what you did. Inclinations are not respected, only acting out of duty can be respected. 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.
“Virtue ethics has no practical application to modern ethics”. Discuss Virtue ethics is different from the other ethical approaches. It concentrates on the idea of human character. How can you be a better person? It’s concerned with the ethical character of an individual rather than the individual actions.
William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Cultural relativist, William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Two arguments will be presented to support this thesis. Firstly, Sumner’s statement is invalid as his claim is self-refuting. Secondly, moral absolutes do exist.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. 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.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and the self to a status not granted to others, but that one also should not as altruism does sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e.
Suppose the Indians had been unable to communicate their preferences to Jim. Would that have made a difference to what he should do? First, let’s start with Kant. Kant believes that the right thing can only be done for the right reason and nothing else. If you act out of your own desire or for your own means, you are not doing the right thing.
Does human intention cause behaviour, or is the appearance that behaviour is caused by human intention just an illusion? This question is the fundamental issue when one is trying to evaluate the arguments presented by epiphenomenalism on the mind-body relationship. Epiphenomenalism denies that the mental realm can have causal relations with the physical realm, but agrees that the physical realm can have causal relations with the mental realm. In that sense, agency seems to be an illusion and mental processes cannot affect the physical world. The fear of losing agency is not an adequate reason to reject epiphenomenalism.
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.
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. As well as this, there is the idea that it is not part of our duty to do what we are unable to do, or what is impossible for us to do and that moral statements prescribe to us what we should do, to ought to do something implies