Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What does it mean by ethics
The relevance of ethics
Morality and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Morality is central to all rational beings, whereby a moral action is one determined by reason, rather than our personal desires as suggested by Kant (1785) in contrast to Hume. (1738). Furthermore, Kant suggests that an action is moral only on account of its being reasoned, therefore the moral worth of an action is determined by its motives and not by its consequences. Exploring the works of Hume (1738) and Kant(1785) on morality and ethics, we will ask the question whether we should do what is morally right, even when you could profit by doing something wrong, and furthermore, we shall discuss morality as a type of game, yet something you cannot opt out of, as something Foot describes as 'inescapable'. (Foot 1972: 311).
Morality and its standards are often assumed to be 'intrinsically' motivating, and this is how they regulate society's behaviour. (Prinz in Batson 2011:41). Yet Batson suggests rather than intrinsically motivating, we conform to the principles to avoid social and self-rewards, where we are viewed as morally good. Morality for Kant is determined by whether certain moral actions could be turned into a universal maxim. (Kant in Singer 1994). He argued that reason is the same at all times, and for all people, therefore morality should also be universal. In his works, Kant begins by arguing that the only virtue that can be good is a good will. Therefore, actions are only moral if the action could be described as a universal law, known as a categorical imperative. A maxim according to Kant is to act in a way that we would will the action to be a universal law, as opposed to the hypothetical imperative which demands that we act to achieve a certain ends.(Kant in Signer 1994). Therefore, we to act morally good, we sho...
... middle of paper ...
...nature and is a game we play, yet it has its own rules that we must abide by if we are to exist in a society. So why do what's morally right? Because it's our moral duty, even if this goes against our passions.
References:
Batson, D., Thompson, E. (2001). Why Don't Moral People Act Morally?. Current Directions in Psychological.10 (1), 54-57.
Batson, D. (2011). What's Wrong With Morality?. Emotion Review. 3 (1), 230-236.
Foot, P. (1972). Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives. The Philosophical Review. 81 (1), 305-316.
Hume, D. (1994). Reason and Passion. In: Singer, P Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 118-123.
Kant, I. (1994). The Categorical Imperative. In: Singer, P Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 274-294.
Singer ,P. (1993). The Ultimate Choice. In: Singer, P How Are We To Live. New York: Prometheus Books. 1-21.
Principles of Morality. Seattle: Ponster Printing, pp. 89-92. 2010. Print. The. Gevinson, Matilda.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
In Edward Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. William Edward Morris (2008). The. David Hume.
The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
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...
Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature. Excerpts from Book III. Part I. Sect. I-II.”
A majority of people would describe themselves as good and virtuous if asked to describe their personal character. Many would go on and describe the numerous occasions when they donated money to a charity, committed a random act of kindness to a stranger without being told to do so or chose not to lie. However, it is possible that people do not naturally act in such honorable ways, but are pushed to behave morally. With the fear of receiving negative consequences for wrongdoing, it is debatable whether people willing or naturally behave justly.
Johnson, Robert, Johnson,. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
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.
In this essay Hume creates the true judges who are required to have: delicacy of taste, practice in a specific art of taste, be free from prejudice in their determinations, and good sense to guide their judgments. In Hume’s view the judges allow for reasonable critiques of objects. Hume also pointed out that taste is not merely an opinion but has some physical quality which can be proved. So taste is not a sentiment but a determination. What was inconsistent in the triad of commonly held belief was that all taste is equal and so Hume replaced the faulty assumption with the true judges who can guide society’s sentiments.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.