It is based on different virtues that a person should have, so that they can then reach Euadamonia. Euadamonia should be the end goal to everyone's life and it is the ultimate happiness. Virtue Ethics is ‘agent centred’ and it focuses on the qualities of the person making the moral choices rather than the actual moral choice that they are making, which can bring weaknesses to the theory as one can justify mostly anything by using virtue ethics. According to the theory, morality is about becoming the right sort of person, it is not asking “what should I do?”, but it is asking “what sort of person should I be?”, and is not trying to find rights and wrongs, just allow you to become a good person. Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred.
This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action. Kantian ethics explains that for something to be good, the only true motivation behind it would be Good Will, with desire or instinct considered and the only purpose being to fulfil your duty and act morally. These moral principles are thought to be categorical imperatives which everyone should abide by even if they are of no benefit to them, There are three principles of the categorical imperative, the first being the universal law. It was believed that you should only act on a maxim, which is a personal law or rule. If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action.
Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest. In the laws of nature, there is a covenant among people in which one of the parties must perform after the other through promise. However, promise in Hobbes’ system is not based on trust, virtue or any intrinsic purpose, because by the first natural right which is self-preservation, such justification seems as a luxury. Since one on trusts no one, promise keeping should be enforced by the fear of sovereign, whose job is to enforce the contract by punishing those who break it. Thus, the fear of punishment by sovereign makes promise keeping possible.
Next on the basis of James Rachel’s argument against ethical egoism will try to answer the question posed. This essay will also discuss the common sense view is the most appropriate way to act in most of the cases. Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, a theory which states how one should behave. It states that promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it.
Romales Harty Ethics/Morals Immanuel Kant Intentions vs. Consequence In Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals Kant parleys about goodwill, duty, and the categorical imperative. When Kant states “the true vocations of reason must be to produce a will that is good, not perhaps as a means to other purposes, but good in itself, for which reason was absolutely necessary. This will need not, because of this, be the sole and complete good, but it must still be the highest good and the condition of every other, even of all demands for happiness”, implies that goodwill is what makes you good as a person. You have to want to mean good and use reason to figure out what to do with goodwill (desire).
Comparison between deontological and utilitarian ethics Deontological ethics Deontology is a normative theory attributed to Immanuel Kant, which focuses on the concept of the duty. It is concerned on fulfilling what is believed to be a moral duty without considering its impact to other people. It takes the stand that the duty defines the right actions regardless of the consequences. The hold of deontological ethics is that doing right is what conform the moral laws. According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty.
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and the self to a status not granted to others, but that one also should not as altruism does sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e.
2. Examples: a) ”the notion of duty” A good will is a will that is for duty and what you do is only moral if it is done for duty. Doing something with duty being your only reason to act is morally right, and it does not have to be enjoyable only morally right. b) ”I would express thus, Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will.
When referring to the will of a rational being, it is considered as simply a practical reason. The will of a rational being must be looked at as the action of choosing, based only on reason and it is considered to be necessary or good. A rational being is not obligated to carry out an action if it is not an action of duty, but as rational beings we have a duty to act in a way that is morally correct. However, as rational beings we must only will upon something if there is reason to do so. If the will of a rational being is not based solely on reason, then the action of that individual is not necessary.