Those who whole-heartedly embrace relativism note salient respects, in which ethics is relative, yet erroneously infer that ethical values are noxiously subjective. Those who reject relativism do so because they think ethics is subject to rational scrutiny, that moral views can be correct or incorrect. But in rejecting objectionable features of relativism they overlook significant yet non-pernicious ways in which ethics is relative. In short, each side harps on the opponent's weaknesses while overlooking its own flaws. That is regrettable.
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive. Instead, ethical propositions can be no more that the expression of an emotion which will always be personal or subjective. For example to say “Abortion is good” is to express a subjective opinion about the moral issue of Abortion. For Ayer such statements can be no more than an expression of subjective emotion – leading some to label this approach to ethical language as the “boo hooray” theory. But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language?
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.
Ethics being that aspect of philosophy which investigates human conducts in so far as such conducts can be said to be right or wrong: it can be defined as the branch of philosophy which deals with the morality of human actions or as a systematic study of the fundamental principles of moral law. Ethics is the discipline while morality is the study. Morality therefore aids us to distinguish those actions that are right from the wrong ones. Most of such actions we grow up to see that people and the society frown at them and also the actions that are morally prudential. In this essay, we will try to answer the question on why we should live a moral life.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them. This creates a paradox. In order to explain this seemingly inescapable contradiction, Nagel uses the concept of two viewpoints that correlate to both sides of the argument. Depending on which viewpoint you take, either moral luck or the Control Principle can hold true for a certain situation. In this paper, I will argue that, though Nagel's theory makes sense, there are still holes in such an argument.
We must lie to be a moral person, sending our friend to their impending death. It accords with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without concerning ourselves with the consequences of their actions. Perhaps we can find a better way to use the CI in order to obtain a moral answer that we accord with our intuition. Firstly we need to break down Kant’s CI to understand how he uses it to determine moral law. The CI has several formula - the first being The Formula Of Universal Law (FUL): “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Wood 2002, xviii).
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.