If the world did not have goodwill, then one may argue that no good can exist. Because people would not be willing to do good things unless for their own purposes. Harrison claims that,“A Kantian follower would say that the maxims are important because it gives us all a foundation for the differences between being morally good or bad”. If one can do an action in some sort that can be put into a universal maxim. Therefore, you are acting ethically.
However I do not believe that it is possible to happily exist under a system of law whereby we are obliged at times to break our own code of morality. In this situation we are likely to find ourselves in a constant struggle ... ... middle of paper ... ...cation, after all why would we face both conscience and consequence when there is a choice between the two. Therefore it seems that if there are situations where we are legally justified in breaking the law then at those times we must also have found moral justification to do this as well. I believe that we must be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we find immoral. If we obey such laws then we simply break our own code of morality and make ourselves immoral by our own standards.
Ethical egoism is a mistaken theory in that it leads to logical contradictions (Rachels p.87). If one were to protect one’s interest that would require one to prevent another from carrying out their duty to their self, it would be both right and wrong to do so. However that is not logical and self-contradictory, thus not would not be basing conduct on reason. To reiterate, the theory of ethical egoism states that one should put his or her own needs before others, this fails the second part of the minimum conception of morality. Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine.
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. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good.
According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.
Is it ever justified for us to believe in anything on insufficient evidence? William Clifford and Joseph Long have different answers to this question. Clifford thinks that it is always morally wrong because we have a moral obligation to exam our beliefs epistemically. On the contrary, Long argues that there are prudent values to believe something without absolute justification, therefore, it is permissible to do so. To illustrate Clifford’s and Long’s point of views, Luke Skywalker in Star Wars could be an example in deciding whether to believe the Force or not.
Without reason, one moral clause would not be differentiable from another. That is to say that below all morals, there must be some underlying truth because "Truth is disputable; n... ... middle of paper ... ...reasons are NOT necessarily the person's sentiments, they do not motivate actions. One other reason why reason does not impel action is because reason is based on truths. Truths are never changing whereas sentiments are dynamic and are in a constant change of flux. At one moment, the criminal could feel sympathy for his victims and decide to spare a life, and the very next, the same criminal could become enraged at the pimple on a hostage's forehead and shoot him.
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.
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. Kant clearly stated that good or bad fortune should never influence our moral judgements since the good will is a good in itself which is not influenced by an unfortunate fate and is much higher than the sums of all the inclinations that might have led to it (Kant 393). By this sense, the condition of control proposes no relevance in terms of Kantian ethics because he would claim that it would be incoherent to base all morality into mere luck. Nagel criticized this view by saying that it does not reconsider the possibilities of involuntary acts of people that may lead to unjust moral assessments. Nagel continued by arguing that different states of character that are determined by constitute luck would be directly blamed in accordance to Kantian ethics because they condemn such qualities that are most
Kant argues that human reasoning is limited in its ability to provide an example of true morality. In his essay, he states that what humans perceive as good morals does not necessarily fit the conditions of what can be categorized as universal law of morality. Kant believes that people must hold morality not solely as an idea or set of exceptions but as an absolute idea (Kant 408). This absolute idea should be free of human rationalization in order to create a pure example. He believes this to be the case because within this form of rationalizing what is good from what is wrong there are often cases that stray away from true virtue such as human behavior.