Of these arguments against it, is an argument concerned with the justification in the treatment of others. If there is no factual difference between others and ourselves, then the theory of ethical egoism is arbitrary and we must take others interest into recognition. This justification is parallel to the requirement of reason and impartiality in ethics. To conclude, ethical egoism is false.
In either case, we do not have free will and hence should not be held morally responsible for our actions. However, the fault is this: it is unclear whether his idea of moral responsibility is the correct one as he fails to demonstrate this. This will therefore offset his argument, because of the possibility of many views of moral responsibility, which I will discuss
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? ".
I will begin to illustrate what Waldron means by such a right. Before we even look at the meaning of “a right to do wrong”, Waldron clarifies that he is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. “A right to do wrong” means that an action is morally wrong but it is an action that an individual has the moral right to do. It is suggested that an individual should not act in an immoral way but has the choice to do so. Waldron wishes to answer the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do wrong.
I will start by introducing two famous arguments in favor of Moral Relativism and explain why they are flawed arguments. I will later address some problems with the theory itself. Two forms of Moral Relativism are Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism. Subjectivism holds that what is morally right and wrong depends on individual’s opinions. A person’s approval of something makes it morally right; a person’s disapproval of something makes it morally wrong.
Neither axioms or prima facie duties have a self-evident nature, which hurts Ross's ideas of objectivity in these rules. Also, the state of moral disagreements and consensus on moral issues seems to suggest that Ross was wrong about his ideas regarding moral epistemology.
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.
Logic and Moral Dilemmas ABSTRACT: Logic is of great importance for the philosophy of education. In particular, logic provides a rational and critical approach in ethics, helping us understand the nature of moral dilemmas. Some suggest that all moral dilemmas result from some kind of inconsistency in the moral rules. Unsolvable moral situations simply reflect implicit inconsistencies in our existing moral code. If we are to remain moral as well as logical, then we must restore consistency to our code.
If the condition of control were to be true, then it would contradict many moral assessments we find natural to make, such as Kant 's notion of ethics which emphasizes that an act is morally right if and only if it is in accordance to duty and that it is founded on a good will. Needless to say, a Kantian would outright deny the importance of the condition of control because it contradicts their spectrum of how should morality be determined. Kant focuses on the importance of a good will, meaning that someone who has the volition to act morally is someone who is following reason and has the intentions to do what they consider to be right. Comparing this to Nagel 's condition of control would eventually contradict Kant 's notion of the principle of volition because according to constitutive luck, the way in which we decide our intentions or inclinations is not completely under our control. Thus, this would deny the capacities of a good will to act in accordance with duty because of numerous psychological factors that may influence the way we define what is right or wrong.
This would mean that everyone who tells a promise would have no intention of keeping it. This would make promises pointless, as no one would keep them and there would be no reason for them. He uses this to argue that the maxim of making a promise with no intention of keeping it is not a maxim at all, because it would not work in society. Kant finds maxims very important as he believes that they are the main basis of ‘good will’. If there was no maxims, then there would be no universal morality in which we could uphold.