I’m trying to present the revelatory explanation to the decisions of what we would do in both situations concerning the stories; utilitarianism handles the amount of happiness and distress our decisions create to make what matters. When we want to be happy, we increase our opportunity for acting appropriately, and then we chose to decrease the distress around us. Given this, we may have to break some moral guidelines to reach the result. In order to fulfill my choice for the #1, I would follow my thoughts of breaking my moral code and pull the lever. For #2, I would relinquish my morals and leave my soul in God’s hand to give my own
According the principles of operant conditioning, we are likely to repeat behaviours that produce a desirable outcome and avoid behaviours that do not. The theory suggests, therefore, that we enter into relationships because the person is directly associated with positive reinforcement, which makes them more attractive. As well as liking someone we share a pleasant experience, we also like people who are associated with pleasant events. If we meet someone when we are feeling happy we are more likely to like them then if we were in a negative mood state. In this way a previous neutral stimuli can become positively valued because of their association with a pleasant event (i.e.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
With a good upbringing and a base value system, most individuals will exude good values and ethics. A description of the differences in how each theory addresses ethics and morality Virtue ethics centralizes around characteristics, such as moral character or the virtue of an individual. A proponent of virtue ethics would define helping someone in need as a benevolent or charitable action (Stanford, 2007). Virtue ethics also places more emphasis on helping individuals expand his or her character that in turn extends to individuals better decision-making later in life. These theorists believe erasing vices builds good moral character (Cline, 2012).
The concept of virtue ethics by the philosopher Aristotle looks at how we should not look at the right and wrong actions we do by following guidelines, but look at us as human beings becoming virtuous people, through doing virtuous things. The statement of the weaknesses of virtue ethics outweighing the strengths is to an extent true, in particular when you look at the limitations of virtue ethics when claiming the doctrine of mean. Firstly by looking at the aim if virtue ethics we can gain an insight to the whole concept, Aristotle claimed that in life our aim is to reach fulfilment of happiness, which he called eudemonia. To achieve eudemonia you have to practice virtues and achieve these virtues, through education, emulation and experience. So we learn the virtue by copying someone who is a role model or mentor to confirm our virtue is right and finally practice and experience said virtue.
Furthermore, if God had said the opposite to what He did say then the things that would have been good is now bad. This makes the moral codes seem subjective. For some philosophers, morality cannot depend on authority alone. However, there are also clear problems. If humans obey God’s moral commands simply because they fear punishment, they are acting in a moral fashion purely to serve God rather than morally.
Situationism is the belief that there is only “norm” and that is love. Situationists even believe that love trumps law. So, they do not believe in general rules (unless you count love as a rule), but they have their own sense of right and wrong. In Hierarchialism, there are definite rules. It has an established order of what is most important or valuable.
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
He also added that people also have “social sentiments”, which is feelings that connect us with other people and make us concerned about their welfare as well. And therefore, Hume stated that we measure right and wrong by the true interest of humanity. Utilitarianism is a principle that we ought to do whatever will produce the greatest happiness. It is a combination of three ideas: First, the morality of action solely depends on its consequences. Second, we should do whatever will cause the most happiness or least unhappiness.
Therefore that is what they ask you to consider when making a moral decision. They believe that by taking into consideration what you care about, and basing your decision off of that you are doing what is morally right. Caring for your relationships or just care itself is what is intrinsically valuable in this ethical