The ethical reflections taught in this course, have generated awareness into our own ethical reasoning, allowing us to focus morality on our own lives. The ethical pluralism that is referred to by the title of our text helps to examine the various aspects of our own ethical moral theory. Ethical moral theory dominates our lives on a daily basis. Determining actions we consider being right or wrong depending on the availability of the situation. But, as situations vary, so does the reasoning behind the activities. Although each individual has his/her own mindset and beliefs, the ethical, moral standards which create the baseline of our own morality, fluctuates with our individual teachings.
The pluralistic approach conveyed through Hinman’s
…show more content…
Although the altruism factor does support the selfish acts to warrant self-interest, it does play a role in the particular positive or negative reinforcement of our own environments. Our own environment aids in the determination of our own path. In determining our own path, by the moral choices we make, impacts those around us. Creating a balance between our own decisions, and the decisions of those around us; “The interest of others help to build other people with experience so they too can make their own decisions on their own path. By incorporating experiences with the self-interest path, allows for others to make their own choices.” (week 3)
In order to fully tie together the teachings of Hinman’s pluralistic approach, a final attribute focusing the application of ethical and moral behaviors is needed. Although this attribute concentrates the focus on self, it does help to close the gap between one’s self and the aspect of others within the societal culture. The idea is self-respect, which Kant describes as a “categorical imperative about respect not only enjoins us to respect other people, but also to “respect humanity” in ourselves as well.” By creating self-respect for ourselves, sequentially focuses our emotions to those that surround our
…show more content…
Although a simple phrase, Kant would define this as “doing something admirable for the sake of duty.” However, it could also be viewed as self-respect. The self-respect idea of respecting humanity in order to better one’s own life can help to describe all that is being discussed above. Typically, people would rush to a swift judgement on an issue without knowing all the facts in the case. More commonly, there is the focus on how these issues would impact our own lives, rather those that are involved. Even for myself, and I will be the first to admit this, my emotional judgement and self-interest have caused me to “rush to a quick irrational judgement on a particular situation.”(week 5) However, by incorporating the lessons learned from this class and Kant’s undulling “moral standpoint that we are all treated in the same way.” Only emphasizes God’s rule of “love thy neighbor as thy self” into our own moral and ethical behaviors; by encompassing our moral and ethical flaws, into the preservation of a moral pluralistic
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Kant’s categorical imperative can provide a set of rules to formulate what a good person is and should do. Kantian philosophy is deontological and it requires people to always do their duty. Kant does not forbid feeling good or happiness, but it must be the case that each person can fulfill their duty even if they did not enjoy doing it. In summary, in order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative and I have provide justifications to use it in our daily day lives.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Ethics plays a very important role in one social system and basically on how the people will make their actions or decide on a particular thing on whether it is the right or the wrong thing. Ethical consideration is very important. It helps a person or a group of person understands whether the actions are right or wrong. Ethics is a very critical factor most especially when considering where the ethical standards are to applied. Aside from it, weighing results of actions or decision is also another major concern because of the fact that a person has critically analyze whose side is needed to satisfied. There are instances that moral obligations are also considered, in which moral is defined as a universal accepted personal human behavior that allows a person to decide whether an action or decision is good or bad.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
The term “ethics” discusses how one’s morality needs to take acknowledge that of the rest of the members of the group or community t...
Before a case can be made for the causes of altruism, altruism itself must first be defined. Most leading psychologists agree that the definition of altruism is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (Batson, 1981). The only way for a person to be truly altruistic is if their intent is to help the community before themselves. However, the only thing humans can see is the actions themselves, and so, selfish intent may seem the same as altruistic intent. Alas, the only way that altruism can be judged is if the intent is obvious. Through that, we must conclude that only certain intents can be defined as altruistic, and as intent stemming from nature benefits the group while other intent benefits yourself, only actions caused by nature are truly altruistic.
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
In this paper, I argue about the applicability of virtue ethics which is one of three major branches of normative ethics. The subject of virtue ethics is normally defined as one that puts emphasis on virtues which are also known as moral character. The branch is in contrast to the majority of the approaches which places a lot of emphasizes on responsibilities and rules. The practice is also known as deontology or the practice which emphasizes on the results of actions. It is also known as consequentialism (Swanton,11).The way virtue ethics is applied in modern philosophy should be clearly evaluated.
In this assignment we will be identifying an ethical dilemma an individual has experienced. We will begin with a short introduction of what an ethical dilemma is, moving on to providing brief details of the dilemma an individual has experienced. We will then go on to selecting one ethical theory, to show how it can help an individual understand and deal with the situation when placed within, followed by a conclusion.