The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.
When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind. To this, Mill replies that the only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain open to criticism. Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs.
So it can be taken that George’s action to help Arthur, insofar as it provides him happiness, has proper moral worth despite the fact that he was raised to believe that it is morally wrong to ask for help when you are in need and wrong to provide help to others. Kant explains how this similarly applies to scripture, which commands us to love our neighbor. He says love as an inclination cannot be commanded but that generosity and good from duty is a “practical” love. It is this “practical” love that lies in the will rather than in feeling and lays principles of action rather than in what might be initially observed as sympathy on George’s part. Taking this to be true, George’s actions do not conflict with what he believes under these circumstances and his actions do indeed possess moral
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
Ingratitude is certainly not a matter of fact then, and so it must be discounted because it “arises from complication of circumstances w... ... middle of paper ... ...f his inner being. His sentiments, if only for himself, remain within him. “One thing can always be a reason, why another is desired. 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 be still sentiments.
At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree with him on that point. But the truth is we don't live in a utilitarian society. “A good will is not a good because what of effects or accomplishes because of its fitness to attain some proposed end but only because of its violati... ... middle of paper ... ...ately lights upon what is in fact in common interests and in conformity with duty and hence honorable, deserves praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely that of doing such actions not from inclination.” (Page, 11, Kant) Second, possessing and maintaining one's moral goodness is the very condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing.
Socrates refutes this and says that though the tyrant may do what he sees fit, it is not really what he wants to do. His argument to support this is found in moral intelligence and the want to do the best... ... middle of paper ... ... doing what we want when the outcome is wicked. Moral goodness is a form of knowledge to him, and that knowledge is necessary in order to do well. It is the good that we strive to achieve by doing what we see fit, but if we do what we see fit and actually create a wicked outcome we are not truly doing what we want. In order to do what we want we must have the knowledge of moral goodness to do what is right, and not to inflict suffering on someone else.
It 's particularly imperative to carry on with an ethical life when we are youthful, as it is useful to practice and practice these ideas before being faced with more unpredictable issues. Lafollette hypothesizes that morals resemble mostly everything else that we endeavour to be great at; it requires practice and e... ... middle of paper ... ..., except a good will’(London). These duties are actions that are ethically obligatory and to circumvent the actions that are morally prohibited. Kant argues that ‘a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails’ (Chen, p242).
This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame. Once an individual feels a sense of shame, their soul is not in harmony. Thus, they would not be living a good life in that moment. Another point Mencius would make is a social ritual is not merely created because it is the right thing to do. Rather, the reason behind why a social ritual was created makes it right.
The biggest factor to note here is that Utilitarian ethics are not act driven, but rather they focus completely on the consequences of an action. If lying in a situation was to create more Good than telling the truth, then by these ethics, lying is not only acceptable but the right thing to do (Philosophy- Ethics). When keeping Utilitarian ethics in mind with the pacemaker case, there are actually two main issues to analyze in making the decision. The first decision deals with the outcome ... ... middle of paper ... ...gations to establish and maintain it.” (Hamilton III). This by no means infers that the Utility test is wrong, but it does not deliver the broader implications of the decision as the Common Good test does.