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.
------------------------------------------------- Moral Virtue Theory, Duty Theory, & Utilitarianism Latoya Gibson October 12, 2014 October 12, 2014 Virtue Ethics is a classification within what is called Normative Ethics. Normative ethics will attempt to classify and discover what might be deemed of moral character, and then to apply the moral character as a base for a person’s choices and actions. The basic concept behind Virtue Ethics is that it focuses on what an individual should choose for his/her own personal character behavior rather than the individual relying solely on the external laws and customs of the person's culture, and if a person's character is good then so should the person's choices and actions be good. There is value in the ideals of Virtue Ethics, namely the value of directing the individual's attention away from following popular opinion while placing the attention back upon the individual themselves. Duty theory is a moral theory, especially connected with Kant, according to what actions are right or wrong because of their inherent content, and the motive from which they are done.
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’.
In searching for what nonconsequentialist believe, I found that it is the opposition of consequentalism. One view that is in opposition to consequentialism is deontology. Alexander describes dentology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
What is Servant Leadership? What are its implications of Using Unethical Practices in Department of Children Services ? And, how do ethics relate to this Unethical Practice and Social Services as a whole? First let us define Servant Leadership. Robert Greenleaf, the Author of Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness defines the Servant Leader: “The servant leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.
Instead, the subject herself, through her own reason and the feelings and motives arising a priori from her rational capacities -- the feelings of respect, conscience, moral feeling and love of other human beings, must constrain herself to follow them (MS 6:399-404). Among ethical duties, the fundamental division is between duties to oneself and duties to others. Within each of these two main divisions of ethical duty, there is a further division between duties that are strictly owed, requiring specific actions or omissions, and whose violation incurs moral blame, and duties that are wide or meritorious, the specific actions not strictly owed, but deserving of moral credit or merit. Kant treats these latter as ‘duties’ (eschewing any category such as ‘supererogation’) because the actions in question are conceived as fit objects of self-constraint – things we can make ourselves do through the exercise of reason and the moral feelings arising from the application of practical reason to our faculty of desire. Regarding duties to oneself, this division is between ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ duty; regarding duties to others, the strict or narrow duties are called ‘duties of respect’ while the wide or meritorious ones are called ‘duties of love.’ We may represent the major divisions of Kant’s
David Hume states in his work “Enquiry concerning Human understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals” that a miracle is “is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular violation of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent”, so any miracle would be a violation of what Hume refers to as a law of nature. To understand what Hume means by this we must understand what a law of nature actually means; Princeton defines Law of Nature as “a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature”. More specifically if x is classified as a law of nature then it can be assumed x is invariant, or that when a person attempts to create x, they will always create x and never y. For example if I were to throw an ordinary ball into the air only to observe it falling back down to earth until the end of time, and each time the ball fell down when thrown, I would be able to exclude the likelihood that when a ball is thrown into the air it will hover for a while,
5. Reconciling belief in the existence of God with the existence of evil is a grave problem for the theist. Among the responses to the two versions of the problem of evil include a defense of free will and the plausible reasons God may have for allowing evil to
Human Nature vs. Nurture Why the choice of Human Nature over Nurture This thesis will argue the belief that human nature is more relevant than nurture. What is human nature and what is nurture? Is your personality influence by hereditary more than environment? “Be yourself and be who you are” what do these phrases mean? What is the great debate over nature vs. nurture?
Determinism & Incompatiblism Respective Negations and Moral Implications In the following treatise, we shall explore the metaphysical themes of compatiblism, determinism, libertarian free will, and their respective negations (where applicable). In addition, we will examine the supposed moral implications of adopting these views, such as, moral responsibility, the proper assessment of criminal behaviour, justification for punishment, and the like. Moreover, certain metaphysical views will undergo examination and summary given; in order to greater understand their roles within society. Similarly, moral inferences will be illustrated and scrutinized where necessary. Furthermore, an opinion piece regarding the adoption of a particular metaphysical notion will be voice, and placed under inspection for error.