In this paper, I will use an objection that is raised against the theory of ethical pluralism to demonstrate how non-absolutist pluralism is a stronger theory than absolutist pluralism. I will begin by summarizing what ethical pluralism and ethical monism are by Shafer Landau’s standards. My paper already assumes that pluralism is the better theory, but understanding what these two theories consist of is essential to showing how much stronger non-absolutist pluralism is as a school of thought. Next, I will explain the specific argument against absolutist ethical pluralism that I will be addressing. I plan on using the weaknesses in the Argument from Contradiction that Shafer Landau brings up in The Fundamentals of Ethics to demonstrate the overall merits of pluralism, and to prove the superiority of non-absolutist pluralism. Finally, I will solidify that non-absolutism is the stronger of the two camps through the use of W.D Ross’s Prima Facie Duties. Overall, both schools of ethical pluralism are superior to the theory of monism, but it is the non-absolutist camp that has reason to be preferred. This is because its central claims do not crumble under the weight of the arguments that are given to oppose it, and the fact that it provides superior responses to objections than the absolutist school of pluralism.
First, it is essential to note the prongs of ethical pluralism. Shafer Landau describes ethical pluralism in this way: “Ethical pluralism is a family of views that holds that there is a plurality of fundamental moral rules. Thus pluralists deny that we can systematize ethics under a single rule” (215). Ethical pluralism is in direct contrast to another theory known as ethical monism. Ethical monism is the belief that there is...
... middle of paper ...
... are absolute (243).
In conclusion, it is clear that the ethic of prima facie duties (non-absolutism) has a lot of merit to it. It is pluralistic, meaning it rejects monism, and rejects the idea that all of morality revolves around one fundamental moral rule (250). It also rejects absolutism, which makes It able to rectify sometimes breaking what we believe are legitimate moral rules. It easily handles the Argument from Contradiction and moral conflict in the form of moral regret. In addition to all of this, Ross’s theory has nicely addresses the Argument from Disaster Prevention and other arguments that are designed to undermine moral absolutism (250). All in all, non-absolutism has better objection responses, a stronger core philosophy, and has a flexibility that absolutism simply does not. The information provided by Shafer Landau and Ross supports this theory.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Monistic theories have failed to be sufficiently broad to provide an adequate answer to any moral scenario they are given. Furthermore, of the main Pluralistic theories, Rossian Pluralism 's inclusion of weighting rules makes it a better candidate for a moral theory than Virtue Ethics, which is far too relativistic to be viable. Finally, although Rossian Pluralism 's weighting rules cannot give an adequate answer to all moral conflicts, one must accept that this is simply the nature of morality itself. It seems unlikely that we will ever find the answer to all conflicts between moral duties, just as it is unlikely that we will find out whether or not paintings by Michelangelo are objectively better than paintings by Picasso, or whether or not one should save ten burning Picasso paintings instead of three burning Michelangelo paintings. Because morality is subjective, we will never find answers to questions that require one to draw meaningless lines where one thing becomes more important than another. Therefore, despite this universal issue, Rossian Pluralism still seems to be the most sensible moral
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
n this reflective journal entry, we are going to look at that the ethical issues that were presented in the Ethics Game simulations, the decision-making steps that were completed to address ethically the issues, and the ethical lenses that I used to make decisions throughout the simulation. We are also going to take a look at how these different ethical lenses influenced my decision and the how I could use the concepts that I have learned in my workplace.
Ladd argues that attempts to make professional codes of ethics are confused about the nature of ethics (Ladd, pg 130). I will be arguing that Ladd’s thesis is not true and that the supporting arguments for his claim do not hold up. To do so, I will first be stating and explaining Ladd’s arguments for his thesis. Next, I will show why these arguments do not hold up using reasoning and counterexamples. Lastly, I will consider possible responses to my arguments from Ladd and disprove those as well.
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
It is hard to pinpoint the true definition of ethics. Although it could be defined, in simple terms, as what the society approves of right and wrong, defining ethics as simple as that is “unethical”. In fact, since centuries, several philosophers have disputed with the definition of ethics and several have come up with their own philosophical ideas of ethics. But, for the time-being, the definition of ethics can be expanded to “well-founded standards of right or wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues” (Velasquez et. al). Because the definition of ethics is so confusing and conflicting, at times, it arose to a branch of ethics that investigates
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
The principals of ethics provides society with the moral basis for decisions making and it changes throughout history as it reflects the knowledge and beliefs of the world at one particular time (Begley, 2009). Today, a new branch of moral philosophy has been developed with a more predominant regarded and value for science, fact and reasoning, placing more emphasis on evidence based practice in modern society (Begley, 2009). This moral philosophy is based on principals of logic and reason, a dramatic contrast to past philosophies, which were influenced deeply by spiritual and religious models. This new branch of philosophy is known as secular ethics. Secular ethics was established through the influences of both science and philosophy (Begley,
Within the study of ethics, the principle of subjectivism maintains there are no immutable truths. Founded on an individual’s limited experience, personal rulings are arbitrary statements that reveal one’s attitudes, opinions and emotions not facts. Therefore, in order for a statement to be considered ethically or morally correct, it merely has to be approved by the person n question. By way of further explanation, ethical subjectivism can be said to begin with personal experience of the world and end with generalizations that enable an individual or assembly to render judgments about the world.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
Ethics define a broad meaning on the subject itself. Baumhart,R (1987) states that ethics can be separated into 2 things. Firstly, it could be identified as a great level of right or wrong which can relates to the actions of p...