1. (652)
In the reading of The Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard discusses four basic theories for the justification of morality: Voluntarism, Realism, Reflective Endorsement, and the Appeal to Autonomy. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defining Voluntarism, outlining the argument that Korsgaard presents for Voluntarism, and explain her criticism for why it fails. First of all, let me start off by defining the meaning of Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The will, as referred to in the previous context can be defined as the authority or higher power that creates a purpose or intention and makes decisions and choices.
Voluntarism according to Christine Korsgaard is the theory that “moral obligation derives from the command of someone who has legitimate authority over the moral agent and so can make laws for her” (24). The moral agent can be described as someone or something that is capable of right or wrong actions. So in regards to the quote above, when it comes to morality, will precede one’s own intellect. This account of the source of normativity explains that there can be reasons for the law but it is the fact that there is a law that creates the obligation. Voluntarism explains normativity in a way that since we, as moral beings, are subdued to laws including of which are moral in nature, so we are, therefore, subject to the makers of the law.
Korsgaard argues that the will to want to obey the law is dependent upon the reasons that cause us to obey laws in the first place...
... middle of paper ...
...ty. Ignoring this obligation can be bad to a business no matter how you look at it. The business becomes valuable when it can uphold social responsibilities while at the same time maximizing profits. Man made the business, business did not make the man, therefore we must rule and reign over it responsibly.
Works Cited
Ciulla, Joanne B., Clancy W. Martin, and Robert C. Solomon. Honest Work: a Business Ethics Reader. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
Korsgaard, Christine M. The Sources of Normativity. Clare Hall, Cambridge University: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 16-17 Nov. 1992. PDF.
O'Neill, Onora. A Simplified Account of Kant's Ethics. McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1986. PDF.
"Voluntarism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 28 Aug. 2004. Web. 22 Oct. 2011. .
In John Ludwig Mackie’s book Inventing Right and Wrong, he claims that “in making moral judgments we are pointing to something objectively prescriptive, but that these judgments are all false”. By saying this, he supports his main point that there are no objective values. However, John McDowell will be against Mackie’s argument, for he suggests that besides primary qualities, there are also secondary qualities that can be objective. I hold the same viewpoint as McDowell’s. In this essay, I will firstly explain Mackie’s argument, then illustrate McDowell’s objections, and finally explore some potential responses by Mackie.
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
Normative ethics is a branch of ethics which attempts to illuminate how humans should live their lives, and more specifically how to make moral decisions concerning oneself and others, according to c...
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
The divine command theory is an ethical theory relating to God and how his commandments should guide the morality of humankind. Objections to this theory include objections to the nature or existence of God or to the nature of his character or commands. For the purposes of this paper, I will present the divine command theory, introduce a serious objection evident in Genesis 22, propose and explain an alternative to the divine command theory that is the divine will theory, explain why this theory avoids the objection, and critique and respond from the perspective of a divine will theorist.
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Van-Inwagen, Peter. "Freedom of the Will." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Shafer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 409-418. Print.
In Korsgaard’s article on The Authority of Reflection, Korsgaard presents the idea that all rational beings have a unique ability to reflect on our actions and how it plays a role in determining what obligations we have. This means that rational beings can weigh the pros and cons of our options before we decide on what to do, influencing what obligations we will have. This is opposed to acting on one’s first instinct without reflecting on the action first. This essay expands on Korsgaard’s argument on practical identity, moral identity, and the different characteristics of these identities that influence how one acts.
If (1), then the content of morality is solely dependent on God’s whim; rendering morality nothing more than blind obedience to divine arbitration. If (2), then the action is evil independently of God, in which case God is simply redundant. Moreover, if the theist claims that morality is not arbitrary then God must recognize a moral code superior to Himself – in this case, God’s sovereignty devolves into subordination. Therefore, recognizing that humans have the agency of freewill, it must be the case that our motivations to be moral are independent of God’s
The relationship between religion and morality is one which has been, and continues to be, exhaustively discussed and debated by philosophers. One argument which seeks to provide a solution to this matter of contention is the Divine Command Theory. In this paper, I will argue that the reasoning provided by the Divine Command Theory is an inadequate defence of the dependence of morality on religion and religious deities because it fails to provide logical justification for God's moral dictates. First, I will begin by providing a closer examination of the Divine Command Theory and its implications, and offer explanation for its widespread appeal. Next, I will introduce Plato's The Euthyphro, which critiques the Divine Command Theory's definition of morality, and its famous dilemma, which poses two possible explanations for the correlation between God's command and morality. Subsequently, I will explore Rachels' argument in Elements of Moral Philosophy, which posits that neither alternatives proposed by the Euthyphro dilemma are acceptable because the first fails to provide reason for God's moral judgments, implying that they are arbitrary, while the second is inconsistent with religous ideology. Next, I will examine and refute a counterargument made by many atheists... Finally, I will conclude that due to the failure of the Divine Command Theory to prove the dependence of morality upon God's will, independent moral standards do in fact exist.
In this paper, I will argue that we have free will for our actions and our moral responsibilities. Free will is a big part in life. We have free will, but there are times where there is no free will. In the world we live in today, we really don’t always have free will.
Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2007). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right Fourth ed., Retrieved on July 30, 2010 from www.ecampus.phoenix.edu
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.