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.
Explain the theory of duty in Kantian Ethics (25 marks) Kantian ethics is an absolutist theory as Kant claimed what is morally ‘good’ is constant and unchanging. Because of this, it can be a universal concept applied in different societies and cultures with the idea that an action should only be performed for duty’s sake. His approach was deontological because the idea of right or wrong was based on the action rather than the consequence, he believed that this was the only rational basis for morality and could be proven objectively, independent from emotion and opinion. As humans we have the innate ability to reason, something which we gained prior to any sensory experience in this world. This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action.
Secondly, moral absolutes do exist. The final body paragraph will counter the supporting arguments by clarifying that absolute objective truths do not exist as moral truth can be universal but not absolute as every culture has the opportunity to hold the same moral truth and the opportunity to be tolerant of all societies. To reply, a current example that is relevant today is provided to show that theoretically the counter argument is strong, but practically Sumner’s statement is not possible. Cultural relativism is the theory that a person's culture strongly influences an individual’s mode of perception and thought (“Relativism”, 2014). The principle claims that there are no objective truth or values as morality is relative to each society or culture.
today almost no religious group endorses slavery, whereas in the past many communities held it to be perfectly ethical. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. Moral absolutism argues that there are some moral rules that are always true, that these rules can be discovered and that these rules apply to everyone. Immoral acts (acts that break these moral rules) are wrong in themselves, regardless of the circumstances or the consequences of those acts.
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.
The two dominant theories of morality are relativism and absolutism. The former is the position which states that moral propositions do not reflect objective or universal moral truths but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or circumstantial conditions. The latter is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. The theory claims that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of the context of the act. Therefore, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the action.
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. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
Lucky for me, another employee was there to witness that I never said anything negative. I know from personal experience that nothing good ever comes from gossip. In this particular situation the ethical theory that fit my decision making process at the time is deontological ethics. According to Kant, “any principal that holds without exception is knowable only through reason; he maintained that reason alone can ascertain principles of morality” (Moore & Bruder, 2011, p. 282).. Although I did not participate in the discussion; now that I have studied ethics the correct ethical thing to do would have been to convey to the other associate that I don’t agree with talking about other individuals in the work place and leave it at
People are a subset of the planet. Ethics and morality do cross over but I agree that they are not synonyms. Morality is certainly a part of ethics but not all ethics is a part of morality so the two are not always interchangeable or synonyms. Ethics is a guide to doing stuff as is morality a guide to doing stuff to live socially, but you can be doing something that is ethical for the given point of view while at the same time it is unethical and immoral from a social point of view. - Torturing a dog is unethical and wrong as there is no reason to inflict that pain on the animal but it’s not immoral as that is the wrong term to use because another human is not involved.
The view behind this thought process is utilitarianism, and at first glance, there seems to be little to argue about. If morality is about choosing the good course of action, then what can be better than happiness? Certainly from the utilitarian viewpoint, the requirement for a moral act is that it is good for other people. The problem is that 'happiness' is a very subjective word, the weight of which is hard to pin down. Firstly, it is impossible to measure, and secondly no one is able to correctly judge the amount of happiness promulgated by any one action, primarily due to the fact that the full extent of the future cannot currently be known until it happens.