I believe we may well be able to do without moral facts. According to moral skepticism, the existence of moral facts is deniable. Finally, though, I am unconvinced that a system of ethics without moral facts, as commonly understood, is really a problem for morality. While I believe
* The vice of excess is entirely too much of the virtue which leads to excess rather than moderation, e.g. the excess vice of modesty is shyness. Aristotle asks followers to choose the mean or middle ground between virtue and defect: rather than praising a golden unevenness, followers are expected to discover the middle ground for themselves – to avoid excess and lacking character in any particular kind of action. Aristotle said that virtue is a state of having increased the ‘right prescription’ of good behaviour or ‘orthos logos’. A virtuous person will be able to apply the virtues to practical ethics for example; they will know when to show courage etc.
Explain Kant’s theory of ethics In Kant’s theory of ethics, there are a few fundamental principles. The Categorical imperatives, the idea of duty and ‘good will’. Kant’s ethics are deontological, which means that they are concerned with the morality of duty. Kants theory states that the means justifies the end, not the other way around. The intentions or motives for an action must be just in order for the action to be just.
Also, Kant sustain that reason is the most important concept to identify what is ethical in a moral universal law, and that nothing have to be done because of self interest, utility, inclination, feeling or pity. Based on the previous information, a Kantian perspective does not allow cheating in a final exam because it is considered an immoral act. Cheating could not be a motive nor could it be accommodated as a universal law, because it will indicate that cheating has moral value, resulting in an irrelevant action of making a test to educate our society. From another point of view, an ethical egoist has a completely different perspective of cheating on an exam compared to a Kantian perspective. Ethical egoism has its fundamental on the justified actions that benefit only the interest of a person, or self interest.
PHIL 2230 – Moral Philosophy The Views of Kant and Aristotle on Morality: the Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives Immanuel Kant discusses in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals the idea of morality as abiding by moral laws – or categorical imperatives. An imperative is “the formula of the command” which indicates to a will – who does not always obey – what is good to do, and what is good to refrain from doing. Kant divides imperatives into two categories; hypothetical and categorical. The hypothetical imperative says “only that an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual” and therefore an action is only good for its ends. However, the categorical imperative represents an action as “objectively necessary in itself”, with no end in mind.
Ethical Egoism We will be discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ethical egoism, but before we begin we first must understand what ethical egoism is and what is involved. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others.
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.
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. On the other hand, a person who enjoys helping others because it brings them joy would be considered selfish and without any moral content. How can this make sense? Hume would argue that it is the passion to help those that are less fortunate that motivates the individual rather than the actual act. In general, the action is produced by a passion to do something, spurred on by feelings of guilt or perhaps philanthropy.
Immorality therefore is the violation of such law. Kant goes on to argue that the morality of any action can be seen, not by the desired consequences, but by the motive behind the action. Basically, Kant believes that we should act because of the motive not because we see the end results of the action. Consequences of an act are, for the most part, irrelevant to morality; we can control the motives but not control the results. Motives then can be measured by whether or not they can be turned into a universal maxim.
Virtues and vices are said to be the basis of moral behavior. Honesty, kindness, and patience are examples of this basis. Kohlberg rejected this focus because the practice was too complex. He believed that a better approach was to focus on the stages of moral development, which are critical. He also rejected the relativist point of view in favor of the view that certain principles of justice and fairness represent the summit of moral maturity.