“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
Kant also believed in humans’ innate moral duty. Kant’s primary point was his theory that all of us have moral duty and that our conscience is what tells us when we go against this, through being guilty or shameful. Therefore, an action which can be classed as good or moral is one which fulfils this sense of duty. Kant also believed that reason was the way to reach realisation and that we can find out moral duty by thinking objectively. 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.
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.
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
But does this strictly subjective understanding of ethical language and statements accurately reflect what is going on when we use such language? C.L. Stevenson recognised that whilst ethical statements could not be proven or “verified”, when we use ethical terms we do so
ETHICAL EGOISM ¿Should we believe that ethical egoism is the right theory to follow? Before answering this question we must define what ethical egoism is. This theory establishes the fact that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest. It is the famous “morality of selfishness.” But how do we know this is the concept we must apply when deciding between helping others and looking only for us. First of all, we must make a differentiation between Ethical egoism and Physiological Egoism.
Two types of egoism: psychological egoism which states that humans are biologically constituted so that we by necessity act in our own self-interests and Ethical egoism which states that we ought to act in our best or rational self- interest even though we don’t always do. Ethical egoism is the use of reason to calculate which actions are best for a person’s self-interest. Ethical egoism is similar to ethical subjectivism because they both focus on people looking out for their own interests. However, Ethical egoism differs from ethical subjectivism because ethical egoism is when people look out for their own best self-interests. Unlike ethical subjectivism which is when people act on what feels good or what they believe is right for them.
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.
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of