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.
To use the limited to pursue the unlimited is simply foolish. While Confucius argued that the only way to achieve a successful and meaningful life was to learn as much as possible in order to find the way, namely by studying everything around you. This is the biggest difference between the two philosophies. Confucius believed that above all else; emphasizing personal and governmental morality and correctness of social relationships, justice, and sincerity is the most important aspect of life. Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”.
However determinism take an opposite view to this; hard determinism is the theory that everything in the universe, including all human actions and choices has a cause which proceeds it. So whatever we do, we could never have done otherwise, whether we feel we have a choice or not. Soft determinism, on the other hand is a view that although the main events and decisions in our lives are determined, we can choose our own path as autonomous individuals to get there. Hard determinists would agree that ethical statements are merely the result of social conditioning as they believe that everything is determined by a cause. In this case, the cause would be social conditioning – Baroch Spinoza said that although we may think that we are free, we are not, we are merely aware of our actions.
At the same to time I think it right to help the less fortunate and to recognize every person as they are, a human being. While I believe that every human being should have the pursuit of happiness and fulfill their self-interests, one should also show concern for our fellow man. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents should do what is in their own self-interest. Ayn Rand believes that this doctrine is one that every man should follow for fear of becoming a society that lives for others and only others, like the dystopian society in her novel Anthem. While ethical egoism sounds appealing to me, I do not believe that is my only duty.
Another idea related to this is the idea of predestination which was the view of the philosopher- John Calvin. Predestination is the idea that our lives are set/planned out previous to the start of our lives. Calvin said that man is “inherently evil and is not capable of good as his free will chooses to reject God”. Therefore, this suggests that God has predestined our lives as to those who will be saved and who will not. This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives.
In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Rand gives an outline of her code of rational selfishness, and of her argument establishing it as the only objective, fact-based moral code in human history. In the course of the essay, she raises and answers a fundamental and fascinating question: Why does one even need a morality? In essays including “The Ethics of Emergencies,” “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests,” and “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” she raises common ethical questions, shows how altruism has crippled people’s ability to approach them rationally, and explains how her moral code provides a solution to them. In “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” she applies her ethics to formulate the basic principles of her political philosophy, while rejecting the altruistic doctrines of “rights” to health care, employment,
Ethics Awareness Inventory Angie Downs PSY/490 John Papazafiropoulos December 6, 2012 Ethics Awareness Inventory Ethics is a philosophy that deals with morality (separating human actions from right and wrong), which refers to one’s personality and integrity (Sitterly, 2005). People have different perspectives on ethics, such as the obligation perspective, which also has its own style of behaviors. Personal ethics is ultimately based on one’s conscience, and incorporating ethics into one’s choices and decisions will help a person make moral choices (Sitterly, 2005). The American Psychological Association (APA) created the Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct for psychologists exclusively (Gravitz, 2009). The Findings of the Ethics
On the other hand, a person’s superego is one’s conscious, which is a collection of moral lessons learned from parents, organized religion, and society. The superego wants the person to only do what is morally right at all times. The ego is the person’s sense of “self.” The ego is formed from reality when the person understands all of her instinctual desires are not able to be met. The ego is the mediator between the id’s and the superego’s wants and decides which desires the person will upon. The superego uses guilt to punish the ego if it misbehaves and rewards it with pride if does what the superego wants.
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.
Is utilitarianism too demanding? Utilitarianism in its most basic form directs moral agents to maximise the aggregate welfare and to do what produces the greatest benefit for all moral agents. The utilitarian theory is susceptible to various objections; this essay will focus on the issue of unrealistic demands. I will argue that utilitarianism is too demanding as it implies that we must always act in order to maximize happiness. This is a strict requirement, as it demands too much from individuals to always be motivated to promote the general happiness.