Aristotelian Ethics and its Context

But to grant that rule-responsibility is socially essential does not grant that it is the essence of morality. QE is flawed as it reduces the topic of moral character to the topic of conscientiousness or rule-responsibility, but it gives no account of the role of the character as a whole in moral deliberation and it excludes questions of character that are not directly concerned with the resolution of problems. Taking into account the criticisms of modern ethical theory I have discussed, it is clearly evident that an ethical theory shaped in light of these criticisms would be very similar to virtue ethics, emphasizing character and centering around the question, "how should I live? ".

Although Mary Warnock argues that existentialism is a mood, this conclusion fails to reflect the full complexity of existentialism. Though it lacks in generalization and is of an individual, arguably incommunicable nature, existentialist philosophy is, at its root, a universal construction of ethics. Before advancing this claim, it is necessary to consider what is meant by the term "ethics". Ethics refer to an individual’s choices rather than the guidelines of society, known as morals, which dictate conformity. In existential thought ethics displace morals because ethics relate to the existentialist’s primary concern: the individual.

He also argued that morality is a preference on the part of the people. He departs from non-realist theorists when he argues that morality has no place in measuring or comparing states with one another: “Here no other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.” Realists’ tenets, fundamentally, are that states should act in their self-interest and that states in the world have to focus on their survival. Realists hold that we live in an anarchic system, and as such... ... middle of paper ... ...heories outlined in this paper. One of the defining principles of realism is that the state is paramount to anything else, including morality. Realists argue that deviation from the state interests in an anarchic system creates vulnerability.

He is "someone who conceives of the principles of political expediency in such a way that they can co-exist with morality (118)." On the other hand, the political moralist is considered villainous because he is selective when it co... ... middle of paper ... ...factors of human nature and shape its maxims according to them. Thus, after considering Kant’s discussion of perpetual peace, political moralism and political realism are incompatible in reality. While Kant may have made a compelling case that a conflict does not occur in theory between morality and politics, a conflict does remain when it comes to man’s subjectivity. For one reason, not all politicians will adhere to morality publicly and thus will not enter into a collective unity to attain perpetual peace.

Deontological Theory of Ethics Introduction When ethics is explored, and an inquiry into its origin and sources are explored to find definition and clarity around ethics, one initial discovery will be that two main views on ethical behavior emerge. One of those theories is the deontological theory of ethics. Ethics and ethical decisions surround themselves around what is the goodness or badness of any particular choice or decision. When exploring ethics, it is necessary to explore what are the different thoughts surrounding what framework is used to weigh this goodness and badness. Deontological Theory explores this very point.

Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable.

His solution is that people should be guided by the moral law, which can be discovered by pure reason alone, and which says that any action should be judged by whether or not it could serve as a principle in a universal law. However, I argue that Kant’s proposed ethical system fails in two ways. First, it lacks the compelling power that Kant thinks it has. Second, if the moral law is accessible via reason alone, then different cultures should not come up with the radically different ethical systems that they have come up with over history. Kant wants to establish an true basis for ethics.

In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience. Works Cited Bennett, Jonathan. "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals."

II Philosophical ethics is the integration of metaethics and normative ethics?the attempt to come to an integrated understanding of both. Given our current perspective, how can we view the philosophical ethics of Mill, Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and the ethics of care? III For Mill, the question is what is the relation between his (metaethical) empirical naturalism and his (normative) qualitatively hedonist value theory and his utilitarian moral theory? One place we can see Mill?s empiricism is his treatment, in Chapter III, of the question of why the principle of utility is ?binding?, how it can generate a moral obligation. Compare Mill?s treatment of this question with Kant?s treatment of the question of why the CI is binding in Chapter III of the Groundwork.

I understand a theory of political legitimacy to give an account of the justice of political arrangements. (3) I understand a theory of political obligation to give an account of why and under what conditions, citizens are morally required to obey the rules constituting those arrangements. The social contract tradition offers us hypothetical consent theories of both political obligation and political legitimacy, frequently neglecting to distinguish the two ideas. Likewise, the common objection to hypothetical consent theories — that hypothetical contracts do not bind — ... ... middle of paper ... ...vice of representation". (14) For an argument that no contractual agreement on the two principles of justice occurs in the original position and that therefore the two principles are not justified by a contract, see Jean Hampton, "Contracts and Choices: Does Rawls Have a Social Contract Theory?"