Instead we should aim to become better people by developing positive character traits called virtues. Aristotle’s ideas concerning virtue are outlined by his use of the ‘Doctrine of the Mean’. He taught about to different vices that accompanied every virtue: * The vice of deficiency is the distinct lack of virtues, e.g. the deficient vice of modesty is shamelessness. * The vice of excess is entirely too much of the virtue which leads to excess rather than moderation, e.g.
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. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
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 in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality. Hume writes that it is desire rather than reason that governs human behavior and that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Kant’s conception of duty is based on the notion that all good ought to be done because they are intrinsically good. Duty for Kant is a basis of moral law. For example, one ought to preserve their own life or help feed the homeless because it is their societal duty to do so, not because they want to or that doing so makes them feel good. In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent.
In this paper, I use examples from the text to show that despite the authors’s arguments to the contrary, balancing judgements are the product of unreasoned intuitions. Given the necessity of some such judgements in any principle-based system, my argument highlights the degree to which principled ethical reasoning rests upon an arational core. "Principlism" is the term often used, sometimes derisively, to refer to a method of moral reasoning found in medical ethics and elsewhere. At the core of principlism is the idea that ethical justification rests primarily, if not exclusively, in appeals to more general or "higher level" moral norms under which any more particular ethical claim can be subsumed. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, by Tom Beauchamp and James F. Childress, has for many critics in medical ethics exemplified the worse sins of "principlism."
This act rejects legalistic (which is where the law comes from) for example this ethical theory could be for example ‘The Divine Command Theory’, however, it also undermines the idea of antinomian ethics (where there’s no law.) This means that the idea of Situation Ethics doesn’t follow any laws, it carries its own laws, only focuses on the consequences. It’s suggested that the ethics should be situational, which is the situation is based on itself and what should be done at the time is required, therefore no thinking should be occur. Situation Ethics works around the four working principles, these being: pragmatic, relativism, positivism and personalism. Firstly, the pragmatic principle is the idea that moral actions must work or achieve some realistic goal, therefore the actions can’t try and achieve something that isn’t possible, it should be targeted to achieve the best but also something that is
That goal is to do what is morally right, if it be through pleasure to avoid pain. This defines utilitarianism. Specific kinds of rules that tells a person what is right and why it is right defines deontology. A good person and doing the right thing, defines virtue. Even though each theory has its own unique way of portraying the act of doing ‘the right thing’, they seem to do just that.
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
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.
According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. There is also an individual form of moral relativism. Thus, this is where morality varies between individuals, it is called subjectivism. Subjectivism, on the other hand, involves our beliefs or perceptions, in figuring out what is good and what is bad. Narveson explains subjectivity through morals, which he believes to be “subjective.” Narveson believes that “they are merely a “matter of opinion,” there being no such thing as moral knowledge, nothing about can be really correct or incorrect” (Narveson, MM, p. 3).Thus, whether peanut butter tastes good, for example, varies from person to person; for some people this is true, for others it is false.