[Course Title] Introduction to Philosophy Ethics Ethics or morality poses questions about how we ought to act and how we should live. It asks, “According to what standards are these actions right or wrong?” It asks, “What character traits (like honesty, compassion, fairness) are necessary to live a truly human life?” It also asks, “What concerns or groups do we usually minimize or ignore? And why might that be?” Admitting our blindness is the beginning of vision. In general, as well as in academic discourse, the terms ethics and morality, operate at times interchangeably and at other times distinctively. For our purposes it will be convenient to use ethics in the more concrete sense of ethical decision and action, with morality and its cognates used in a more fundamental and abstract sense. Justice remains the appropriate name for certain social utilities which are vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any others are as a class (though not more so than others may be in particular cases); and which, therefore, ought to be, as well as naturally are, guarded by a sentiment not only different in degree, but also in kind; distinguished from the milder feeling which attaches to the mere idea of promoting human pleasure or convenience, at once by the more definite nature of its commands, and by the sterner character of its sanctions. There are no ethical first principles which are agreed on by everyone.
On the other hand, there is a striking level of agreement about what is actually right and wrong, in concrete cases. Of course, there are disagreements; anthropologists have turned up some pretty surprising ones. But there is something pretty close to a consensus that (in most cases) murder, lying, rape and theft are bad, and that (in most cases) generosity, healing, truthfulness and loyalty are good (McCollough, 67).
The Essay on Ethics, Morality, and Legality
... to the affected person to prevent future occurrences. Ethics, Morality, and Legality Bribery and lobbying are two phenomena ... in the name of lobbying as was the case for the Winter Olympics Scandal where Salt Lake ... for it qualify as a bribe. In the case of alleged bribery by members of the ... scandals and to create a better business culture. Ethics drive organizations and societies. Each organization has ...
One obvious thing that these things have in common is that most of the things near-universally agreed to be good are things which make people happy, and most of the things near-universally agreed to be bad are things which make people miserable. And in most exceptional cases, there is a clear recognition that they are exceptional cases: excuses are made. Furthermore, the actions usually reckoned to be the worst are often the ones which cause the most suffering.
Rape, for instance, which causes lasting psychological trauma as well as involving physical injury, is generally reckoned to be morally much worse than theft (Mill, 44).
So, utilitarianism seems to do a pretty good job of giving the right answers. There is also a theoretical justification for (at least) something rather like utilitarianism. It seems clear to me that, all else being equal, something which makes me happy is better than something which doesn’t. After all, that’s one way in which I make decisions (though, to be sure, I wouldn’t in such cases call them moral decisions).
Since it seems plausible that all people are ethically equal, this means that anything which makes anyone happy is (all else being equal) better than something which does not.
This seems to lead naturally to something very like utilitarianism (McCollough, 66).
Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved. Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on to which morality is based; therefore they judge each situation individually. Because of this, in weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility this can become a lengthy, time-consuming process.
The Essay on Negative Consequences Freedom Things Live
What Freedom Is To Me Since July 4 th, 1776 the United States has a free country. Citizens of the United States have freedom of speech, religion, and many other things. Webster's definition of freedom is, "the condition of being free of restraints." To me freedom plays a large role in my life. Three things that would be freedom for me are going where ever I wish, actions without negative ...
Not to mention the fact that you will never clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility. In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical theory because it looks to maximize utility. Utilitarianism refers to moral theories which maintain that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action’s consequences. Utilitarianism requires that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
It seems as though this process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, ones person determination of what produces the greatest utility may not be consistent with another persons, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied from it. Kantianism is by far more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of performing an action arent necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to perform the action because it is there duty to do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing. Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time and again with identical or nearly identical results. Should sensation become open to interpretation by accepting that they cannot be empirical observations then we can say that the results cannot be universal even if all persons at once, observed the same even. Kant’s thoughts in Prolegomena to Every Future Metaphysics on the “transcendental aesthetics” that ultimate principles can only be established by transcendental argument loses its effect and basis in the application of the theories; unless, as has been argued by man philosophers since Kant the problem of rational application of Kant’s categorical imperative can be overcome, then the idea of universal morality or ethics is impossible.
The Essay on Evil From Morals God Good Moral
Evil From Morals By textbook definition, evil is 'What is morally wrong, what hinders the realization of good' (Webster). If that is evil, then what is good? It's 'what is morally excellent, virtuous, well behaved, dutiful.' (Webster) Philosophers have argued over what evil is and why it exists for thousands of years. They have raised questions like 'How can there be a God if there is evil?' These ...
Rational application depends entirely on the ability of a person to observe non-empirical action in the transcendental noumena exactly the same as his neighbor, yet, as was stated earlier, that because the action or the even! Was seen in a non-empirical light then interpretation muddles the rational application of what is seen by each observer. To put it simply, because each person can see or perceive an event or situation differently, then the responses to the event or situation will vary, thereby reducing the ability for a “universal” response or ethic to the event. In assessing the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the Utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of action.
The Essay on Education Necessitates Action One Knowledge Good
"You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself." -Galileo Can a United States president, a Greek philosopher, an influential astronomer, and world-class author disagree on a single, seemingly simple topic? One that is ever present in the everyday life of all throughout the world? How can names like Aristotle, Emerson, Galileo, and Garfield disagree on such a topic ...
To the given scenario, my decision will be to let one of our parties die because this way I will be able to save lives of other parties. Works Cited Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government.London: Everyman, 1993. pg 12, 25 Thomas E. McCollough, The Moral Imagination and Public Life: Raising the Ethical Question,1991. pg 66-68 Fred Feldman, Kants Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique from H.
J. Curzer, ed EthicalTheory and Moral Problems,Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999.
