The ‘historical signs’ of such moral purposiveness provide moral orientation through the conflicting claims that arise within and between complex and historically evolving human communities. I explore the role of disinterested judgement in providing this orientation and in marking the moral disposition of the species. In contrast with his major ethical works, Kant’s writings on history are replete with the theme of the social character of moral development and the interdependence of individual and community. Assuming for the moment that in some fundamental sense, moral decision making is an individual matter, how does the social context of human life affect morality? In particular what is the significance of the fact that our social structures are constituted over time?
Discussion of The Issues Raised in Meta-Ethics Ethics is the study of how people behave, and how they should behave. It is based on ideas of what is morally 'good'. But, in order to understand ethics, a definition of 'good' needs to be determined. Here, one sees that such ideas will vary from person to person and from culture to culture. Likewise, such ideas explain why there is such a variety of moral systems in use today and a marked difference in the level of commitment to a personal moral code.
Recognizing the great extent of moral disagreements, some contemporary philosophers start to wonder whether morality is absolute in its nature. They propose a theory known as Moral Relativism, which holds that “moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other” (Dreier, p.1); no absolute moral fact exists independently of those standards. The opposite theory of Moral Relativism is Moral Absolutism---the idea that moral proposition is determined by absolute, unvarying moral facts. In this paper, I will argue that Moral Relativism is not a suitable theory in explaining the nature of morality. I will start by introducing two famous arguments in favor of Moral Relativism and explain why they are flawed arguments.
It can baffle the mind and find you thinking and speaking in circles. The deontological viewpoint of ethics is a theory that has tried to place definition on a theory that is indefinable. Although the criticisms are heavy and forthright in regards to deontological ethics, their foundation is truly essential in the discovery and exploration of ethics. Works Cited Action, H.B. Kant’s Moral Philosophy.
When beginning to discuss the proposed question one must first posses a valid definition of ethics in order to determine the factors of a situation that relate. Ethics are in a way the ‘rules’ that define what is or isn’t acceptable in a society based upon core values and beliefs that the society holds to be true (Ethics vs Morals). Therefore, furthering to relate to the proposed question, an ethical judgment is simply a judgment based upon the ethics of a situation. The majority of ethical judgments that are well-known throughout society have come about when a ‘rule’ is violated or blatantly ignored. Throughout the world’s history, ethics have continuously shaped people’s opinions and influenced the actions in which they take.
Then I will discuss the requirements of ethical egoism and the difference between ethical egoism general principle of self-interest and the notion of “whatever one wants.” I will then briefly suggest that Ethical Egoism is plausible but show the theory cannot be plausible in the same argument. Furthermore I will discuss the argument against ethical egoism that proves the theory to be arbitrary from the general principle concerning the treatment of others. Lastly I discuss why this arbitrary concept poses a problem for moral theory and reasons in ethics. Ethical Egoism states that we should pursue our best self-interests of the long run. Morally right actions are those, which benefits our-self.
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative.
As will later be discussed in detail, Martin, Meaningful Work, disagrees with this opinion; Martin believes personal ideals and morals play a large role. This paper will explore not only both sides of this argument, but also exactly what an act of duty is, what would be required to make an act moral, how good will plays a part, and just how important autonomy is when the laws of morality are involved. As I stated above, Kant believes that to act from duty, one is required to perform out of respect for the moral law. But what exactly is the moral law? The moral law is, in the simplest terms, rational will that is guided by neutrality and universalized reason.
Ladd argues that attempts to make professional codes of ethics are confused about the nature of ethics (Ladd, pg 130). I will be arguing that Ladd’s thesis is not true and that the supporting arguments for his claim do not hold up. To do so, I will first be stating and explaining Ladd’s arguments for his thesis. Next, I will show why these arguments do not hold up using reasoning and counterexamples. Lastly, I will consider possible responses to my arguments from Ladd and disprove those as well.
In a global world we should strive to develop greater social and ethical cohesion. Relativism is a hindrance to such an endeavour, a limiting theory that places great restraints and boundaries upon judgement, criticism, and interaction, which therefore limits the development of ethics. Works Cited Dawkins, R. (2004) A Devil's Chaplain. London: Phoenix. Furrow, D. (2005) Ethics; Key Concepts in Philosophy.