Ethics – P1-IP Wuldnt the wrld be s much easier if we all agreed n what was mral and what was nt? Unfrtunately, each persn differs in their mral beliefs and what ne may cnsider t be mral, smene else may nt. Having different pinins des nt mean that ne particular persn is right and the ther is wrng, but the law is a different stry. Regardless what ur wn persnal beliefs are, the law is the law and certain mral standards have been set. Ethical frmalism is cnsidered t be a Dentlgical system because the imprtant determinant fr judging whether an act is mral is nt its cnsequence, but nly the mtive r intent f the actr. This means that if smene is ding smething fr the gd will, but the utcme results in bad cnsequence, it is still cnsidered t be a mral actin. If smene has an alternative mtive, like expecting smething in return, then the act is nt mral.
Nrmative ethical systems can generally be brken dwn int three categries: dentlgical, telelgical and virtue ethics. The first tw are cnsidered dentic r actin-based theries f mrality because they fcus entirely upn the actins which a persn perfrms. When actins are judged mrally right based upn their cnsequences, we have telelgical r cnsequentialist ethical thery. When actins are judged mrally right based upn hw well they cnfrm t sme set f duties, we have a dentlgical ethical thery. Accrding t the telelgical view, it is maintained, mrality is a means t an end. Hence, if the end is gd, the means f realizing that end must necessarily be gd, which is equivalent t saying that the end justifies the means. And if the end justifies the means, then it is right t cmmit crime in rder t realize a gd end.
The Essay on Running Head Ethical Conduct
Running Head: Ethical Conduct Ethical Conduct (Authors Name) (Institution Name) Code of Ethical Conduct: Introduction In the present day environments, activities related to business organizations are under more scrutiny then ever before by the government regulatory authorities, clients, shareholders and the general public. Therefore, the ethical conduct of business managers and their employees ...
The practical applicatin f this teaching is bund t lead t immrality, which in itself stamps it as false and dangerus. These statements are full f miscnceptins. The thery des nt assert that any end which any persn may happen t regard as gd justifies any means which in that persn’s pinin will realize the end. It maintains that mrality cnduces t an end, that this end is the highest end, that this end, as the highest end, is tacitly desired and apprved by all mankind. The crrect applicatin f such a principle cannt fail t meet the apprval f the mst mral man in existence. This thery des nt als hld that when nce a man has adpted a certain end as gd he is justified in ding whatever cnduces t it.
The thery des nt cncern itself with the temprary and particular desires f individuals, which may cnflict with the ultimate purpse f mrality. Fr example: I have the right t acquire prperty, but I have nt the right t murder and steal in rder t gain my pint. The amassing f wealth is nt the highest end, the chief gd; indeed, it is nt an end in itself at all, but a means t a higher end. Yu may happen t believe that the advancement f a particular religius sect is the highest end, that Gd desires yur factin t be triumphant. Yu may cnsequently regard it as right t use whatever means may benefit yur sect. But yu shuld remember, first, that yur believing this des nt make it s; and, secndly, that evil deeds will nt in the lng run benefit any cause.
Telelgical ethics des nt say that ends justify means, but it can safely assert that the highest end, whatever that may be, justifies the means. Dentlgical ethics hlds that mral reasning shuld be based n whether a mral principle can be justified n its wn merits. This means that the ethical principle must pass mral standards independent f whether gd cnsequences will likely fllw frm adhering t it. Gd cnsequences, f curse, are desirable whether ne is discussing persnal well being, the public interest f sciety, r general happiness f the wrld. T deny the value f gd cnsequences resulting frm ethical decisin making wuld be incredulus. Immanuel Kant is the mst famus representative f a traditin in mral philsphy knwn as dentlgical ethics.
The Essay on Explain Kants Ethical theories
Kant’s ethical theory is an absolute and deontological theory. This means that humans are seeking the ultimate end called the supreme good also known as the ‘summon Bonnum’. Kant says that morality is a categorical imperative, this is a duty which must always be obeyed in all possible situations. A categorical imperative is what is needed to find what is right or wrong. Kant argued that to act ...
Fr Kant and the dentlgical traditin in ethics, desirable cnsequences are nt the standard f mral appraisal in this ethical traditin. Kant hlds that ntins ther than cnsequences determine the mral wrth f an ethical decisin. Kant makes a fundamental and unprvable claim abut human nature. Fr Kant’s ethical thery t be cnsidered credible, this claim must be accepted by the reader. Kant hlds that human nature is basically gd in the fllwing way. Human beings, if they lacked particular wants and needs tailred t their wn individual situatin, wuld always act mrally. If ne des accept this view abut persns, then Kant believes his mral philsphy is an inevitable utcme f this psitin.
Kant writes, “It is impssible t cnceive anything at all in the wrld, r even ut f it, which can be taken as gd withut qualificatin, except a gd will” (Immanuel Kant, Grundwrk f the Metaphysic f Mrals, trans. H. J. Patn, Harper & Rw, New Yrk, 1964, p. 61).
ne wh pssesses a gd will always acts in accrdance with the mral law. ne simply has n desire t act unethically.
Kant believes that if everyne acted in accrdance with a gd will, the wrld wuld be a perfectly mral universe. Elsewhere he calls such a mral universe a “kingdm f ends” (Immanuel Kant, Grundwrk f the Metaphysic f Mrals, trans. H. J. Patn, Harper & Rw, New Yrk, 1964, pp. 100-101).
It seems that dentlgical apprach is mre apprpriate fr analyzing ethical cnduct.
It is nt always right t use any means t reach gd end, s telelgical thery des nt always hld strng psitins. Dentlgical thery, n the ther hand, prpses that gd intentins fr ding smething are much mre imprtant than the gd utcme. This makes mre sense as peple nt always manage t reach the gd gals they have set, but if the gals were set crrectly, with a gd will, they can be easily called ethical.
Bibliography:
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton, Harper & Row, New York, 1964 Scott Sehon, “Teleology and the Nature of Mental States”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 1994 31, pp.
63-72 Frank Thilly, Introduction To Ethics, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913.
