P1: Moral actions require the ability to make moral choices.
P2: The ability to make right moral choices requires the ability to do something wrong.
C: Therefore, moral actions require the ability to do something morally wrong.
P1: Moral actions require the ability to make moral choices.
Ethics is the study of morality and morally correct actions. Problems of moral actions and moral choices will be eternal because there are no solutions for that problem. Morality by its own essence will always be a fundamental understanding of good versus evil. People will be divided into two categories: good, which understand the personal substance and social values leading to unity and moral perfection. And, the second category- evil, which leads to corruption
…show more content…
Difficult choosing discloses people’s inherited characteristics. The main problem is that society tries to burden us with its ow list of morally good/bad choices. But, every human has its own compass which tells what is morally good/bad, and which situations requires them to make a reasonable decision. So, we can uncover our ability for moral commitment.
P2: The ability to make right moral choices requires the ability to do something wrong.
Everything in this life will have some opposition (good vs. evil), without that oppositions people cannot fully understand their essence of life. People cannot make all the time good choices, without being burnt on bad one with leading consequences. And, moral choices not an exception, as Mackie holds a view that there must be evil in the world is that we couldn’t know the good without evil. From that point, there must be ability to do something wrong in order to understand right moral choices.
The line would be so fragile, it feels like walking on thin ice which can be brake at any time, and consequences will be public scorn. On the example of student plagiarism(hypothetical example), I want to make a
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
Most situations regarding moral rightness, such as those for preserving life and dignity, are very human and easily agreed upon within the environment in which they are born. Greg Koukl’s idea morality and evil is disguised by the sentiment that his ideas are also humanistic and easily agreed upon, but if one were to disagree, he claims it would do nothing more than “put a rock in [the] shoe” of the one who was in disagreement. Seeming to have no idea of sociological deviance, he presents that any deviant behavior away from his personal moral code, and those like it, is “evil” and in “aversion to God”. Even Koukl’s use of usually weak circular logic arguments are weakened by the constant contradictions to his own statements.
To the question, "Why should I be moral?" there is a simple answer (SA) that some philosophers find tempting. There is also a response, common enough to be dubbed the standard response (SR), to the simple answer. In what follows I show that SA and SR are unsatisfactory; they share a serious defect.
Since we are made as free moral agents with the ability to choose the standards by which we will live some in society determine their right and wrong behavior based on their feelings of particular situations. For example, a person who grew up in a culture that is less fortunate than others and steals for survival might feel he hasn’t done anything wrong. However, this type of behavior is not acceptable in our society because it violates our obligation to be obedient to the law, not to mention the disadvantage of consequences one faces for their decisions. The advantage to displaying moral character by far out weights the consequences in that choosing to do right creates fairness by way of harmony. Of course, justice requires that victims are compensated for the wrong done to them, and anyone committs a crime must bear the ...
Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational failings. This concept is supported by Shafer-Landau and Korsgaard while thinkers like Williams and Foot disagree with such a claim. It should be understood that morality and rationality are intertwined were a moral failing correlates with a rational failing.
Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
Root causes he mentions for wrong desires are: seeking only one ultimate or whole good; saying, "something that while good as a means, is a limited good for those who desire it as an ultimate end;" (Adler 37). An apparent good (e.g. ethnic cleansing) can be in reality bad. Further, these wrong desires are fit into four categories by the author: pleasure, money, fame and power. These four all have their place for good, but become a fallacy in excess. Looking at right desires, vices can be many but virtue has a singular moral character. For every singular truth there are several errors. Along with Aristotle 's thoughts moral virtue is concerned with the end but also the means. Adler writes: "The maxim about the end justifying the means applies only to the unscrupulous expediency required for the pursuit of wrong ends" (65). If a person is thrown over the lifeboat in order to save many, the saved are in a worse state because of their (erroneous) moral choice. Freedom as a right desire (moral virtue) is obtained three ways as enumerated by Adler on page 66; these are: natural, acquired, or by circumstances (the poor can 't dine with the rich). All want the freedom to act a certain way, and freedom to not need to act a certain way. However, wisely pointed out, if people have unlimited freedom they will err in taking another 's freedom away. What of other thinkers viewpoints concerning moral
Pastan has created a vivid example of the difficulty of making choices in "Ethics." People seldom realize the repercussions their choices may make. As people grow older and learn more, they tend to see how ignorant some of their choices were. The same can be said of society. Although a great many wrong choices have been made along the way, it is not too late for society to once again put value on what it already has instead of what it might have.
In every aspect of our lives we have a choice that can determine our dishonorable effort
more actions, all of which you have the ability to perform.” (What Is a Moral Dilemma, 2015?).
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
During Michael Sandel’s lecture, the two moral reasoning’s he described was Consequentialist and Categorical moral reasoning. According to Sandel, Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequence of an act, while Categorical moral reasoning located morality in certain duties and rights. (Harvard University (Producer), n.d.)
perform virtuous acts creates the desire to do the right thing for its own sake
Then, no matter how much good a person does, they are always ultimately acting for the same base reasons as even a murderer who kills because they derive a twisted pleasure from the action of killing -- the only difference is the nature of the actions that gratify them. This would leave the person who acts from duty, not sentiment or inclination, as the only remaining contender for moral
Many of our inner standards take the form of judgments as to what is right and what is wrong. They constitute the moral and ethical principles by which we guide our conduct. Lawrence Kohlberg refined, extended, and revised Piaget’s basic theory of the development of moral values. Like Piaget, Kohlberg focused on the moral judgements in children rather than their actions. The manner in which moral judgments develop has been studied extensively by Kohlberg, through the questioning of boys seven years old and up. Kohlberg presented his subjects with a number of hypothetical situations involving moral question like the following. If a man’s wife is dying for lack of an expensive drug that he cannot afford, should he steal the drug? If a patient who is fatally ill and in great pain begs for a mercy killing, should the physician agree? By analyzing the answers and particularly the reasoning by which his subjects reached their answers. Kohlberg determined th...