Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of guilt
Effects of guilt
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of guilt
A Unique and Meaningful Life
A unique and meaningful life is compatible with the concept of a moral agent’s deliberative frame. In defense of this assertion, I will argue in favour of Barbara Herman’s Kantian discussion of moral obligation, which suggests that moral conflict occurs in the agent’s grounds of obligation. Grounds of obligation are facts recognized and considered by the agent during moral deliberation; they are “facts of a certain sort. They have moral significance because they are defining features of our (human) rational natures that limit what we can rationally will (as defined by the CI procedure)” (318).[1] The grounds are not reasons for acting but are guides for deliberation; the facts considered in a given situation are founded in one’s deliberative frame, namely matters of importance to the moral agent.[2] Similar to Herman’s defense of Kant, I will argue that moral conflict may occur among the grounds of obligation in the agent’s deliberative frame, but never in one’s duty because the CI will always determine only one moral obligation.
I will then anticipate two criticisms to counter Herman’s defense of Kant. The first criticism proposes that the individual field of deliberation - that contains “not only [the agent’s] interest and private projects but also the interests of others as possible sources of claims on [the agent’s] actions and resources” (331) - can lead to conflicting assumptions about duties in the members of society as a whole. And the second criticism arises from Herman’s rejection of the feeling of guilt in the Kantian model, in situations of moral conflict.[3] The critics I present accept that the moral agent has a life of her own following from the concept...
... middle of paper ...
... 1990.
Notes:
[1] Throughout my paper, I will be using “CI” as short form for Kant’s Categorical Imperative
[2] I will be using both female and male subjects when referring to the moral agent
[3] A “field of deliberation” is another way of defining the “deliberative frame” (as described above); both contain grounds of obligation when referring to the considerations taken by the moral agent during her deliberation
[4] Basically there are only two options since given the opportunity, she must save one.
[5] Restitution and Remainder are terms that need not be defined since my anticipated critics will focus on the notion of guilt.
[6] It may seem that the feeling of guilt is irrelevant to the discussion of an agent’s deliberative frame; however, the second critic hopes that finding a flaw in Herman’s argument will lead to a rejection of the concept.
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.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can 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.
Many theorists have tried to define play as a concept, however, no two agree on a set definition. Their backgrounds and induvial lifestyles influence the way they see the importance of play. Reed and Brown also believe that there isn’t an agreed definition of play because is something that is felt rather than done (Reed & Brown, 2000 cited in Brock, Dodd’s, Jarvis & Olusoga, 2009). In spite of this, it is clear that most theorists uphold the ethos that play is imperative to a child’s learning and development. There is a wide range of different studies and theories which helps us develop our own perception of what play is. In my personal experience I have found play to be a way of expressive our emotions, exploring and learning new things, thus
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In recent years, same-sex relationships have become more encompassing in US society. State legislation is changing such as accepting gay marriages, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and legal gay adoptions; the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is becoming public. Gay-headed families, like heterosexuals, are diverse and varying in different forms. Whether a created family is from previous heterosexual relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption, it deserves the same legal rights heterosexual families enjoy. Full adoption rights needs to be legalized in all states to provide a stable family life for children because sexual orientation does not determine parenting skills, children placed with homosexual parents have better well-being than those in foster care, and there are thousands of children waiting for good homes.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
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.
Childhood play is an important part of every child’s development. This behavior starts in infancy, they begin to explore their world through play. Play behavior serves as an indicator of the child’s cognitive and social development. Research on play and development is essential to helping caregivers understand the importance of childhood play. I will be focusing on the psychological aspects of childhood play behavior and its relation to cognitive development.
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.
What makes a meaningful life? It varies for each person as we are all very unique and different from one another. Even the definition of what is meaningful will vary as it may be making an imprint/significance in their lifetime or a happy life is enough to be meaningful. Though there is so much variation among the definition, there are some essentials that could relate across the board. The recipe to having a meaningful life may contain the ingredients of: happiness, fulfillment, authenticity, living more fully in the present and having a sense of purpose.