Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
Do we have Free Will? In this essay I will discuss the three positions of Free Will, Libertarianism, Soft Determinism and Hard Determinism. Libertarianism states that free will exists. Robert Kane (2011:24) states: Soft determinists are compatibilists who insist that determinism does not undermine any free will or responsibility worth having, whereas hard determinists are incompatibilists who take a harder line: Since determinism is true, free will does not exist (Kane, 2011:24). Libertarianism is the position I wish to defend, and thus will argue that, indeed, we do have free will.
Is Mackie’s argument from relativity compelling? Mackie’s ‘Ethics: Inventing right and wrong’ critically assesses the idea that there are, or even can be, objective moral truths, and exposits Mackie’s ‘moral relativist’ stance. I intend also in this essay to criticise the idea of moral objectivity, and to deal with the objections that could be potentially raised to a relativist stance. The most obvious task, it would seem, to begin with when assessing the idea of moral objectivity, is to come to an understanding about what is literally meant by ‘an objective moral truth’. The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined. Soft determinists believe that some human actions are determined, but we still have moral responsibility. Hard determinism is the view that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. “Everything is planned, connected, limited.” Voltaire, 1764. This demonstrates that hard determinism is a concept that has been around for centuries.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
Assess Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics, meaning the consequences of an act are what matters. The utilitarian answer as to what to do in any situation is that we should always act to maximise utility. There are two different interpretations of utilitarianism; the positive being that we ought to do that which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number and the negative being that we ought to do that which minimises pain or suffering. Utilitarianism is teleological, or goal orienteered, meaning that the end matters more than the means used to achieve the end. The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action.
In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle.
Deontology is the study of duty. “The theory of deontology states that we are morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles/rules regardless of the outcome.” On Kant's view, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. (Plato). Kant’s ethical theories revolve around personal duty to make one’s actions produce a moral value and respect for other people. In the business and stakeholders context, Kant’s principle of respect for persons asserts that every human being is entitled to be treated not merely as a means to the achievement of the efforts of others, but as a being valuable in his or her own right; that each person is entitled to be respected as an end in himself or herself.
An Investigation of Character and Virtue (Charles Taylor's Theory defended in spite of a robust challenge by Owen Flanagan) 1 An Investigation of Character and Virtue Taylor's Thesis Outlined: One of the most striking and valuable features of Charles Taylor's Moral thought is the emphasis he places on the value of articulating the moral visions that direct one's life. We may live by a tacitly accepted value system -‐-‐ never even feeling the need to say what that system is. But if we engage in the struggle to define for ourselves and for others the values we live by, we deepen our understanding of those moral values by laying bare their foundations. We also heighten our awareness of the complexity of moral life. (Ruth Abbey: "Charles Taylor" Princeton University Press, 2000, pp.