Kant’s Moral Philosophy in Readdressing the Is-Ought Problem

Lastly, it will be shown how "weighing and balancing" and "specification" are integral components in this model and were also practiced by Mill and Kant in their moral systems. Introduction This treatise is a contribution towards the understanding of why humankind cannot agree on the foundation of morality and why moral pluralism is the logical constitution of moral reality. The synergistic-reflective-equilibrium model is the model that will describe how persons can make moral decisions as pluralistic agents. If this model is correct, then it will not be a new discovery, rather, it will be a new description of how pluralistic agents do in fact make moral decisions. This synergistic-reflective-equilibrium description should then be useful not only in giving a fuller understanding of how moral decisions ought to be made, but also how moral philosophy can be united into a pluralistic collective whole.

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.

Is morality relative or are there objective moral truths? In other to evaluate the nature of a culture/society, morals and ethics are needed. What exactly is “morals”? Merriam-Webster defines “morals” as concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior, basically what one think is right or good. Ethics, on the other hand is the discipline relating to right and wrong, moral duty and obligation, and moral principles and values.

Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum

The Surge of Morality Morality in its actuality boils down to different meaning from perspectives that are not necessarily good or bad. The application of morality determines how it can be explained. This shows how an outward appearance defines morality. The concept of morality identifies what is to be done and why it is done in certain ways. However, the existence of conscience gives rise to the definition of a moral act.

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.

We have to balance the question of our philosophical grounds for believing that the moral theory is in fact true — that it corresponds to the demands that actually exist for us in reality — rather than merely being an accurate codification of what we happen to believe. It could still turn out that the 'true' moral theory, the theory that comes closest to capturing the things one actually ought or ought not to do, coheres less well with our ordinary moral beliefs than another theory which is less revisionary in its consequences. The issue I'm addressing is the proof of a set of moral principles, the proof of the validity of a moral outlook or theory. Various attempts have been made to avoid this seemingly irrational consequence by supplying what often have been referred to as "proofs" of' moral principles. The term "proof" as so used had a widely variable meaning but in general what is intended is a set of considerations, other than the internal consistency and adequacy of the theory, which are particularly persuasive in making a choice of one theory or principle over another.

Morality is central to all rational beings, whereby a moral action is one determined by reason, rather than our personal desires as suggested by Kant (1785) in contrast to Hume. (1738). Furthermore, Kant suggests that an action is moral only on account of its being reasoned, therefore the moral worth of an action is determined by its motives and not by its consequences. Exploring the works of Hume (1738) and Kant(1785) on morality and ethics, we will ask the question whether we should do what is morally right, even when you could profit by doing something wrong, and furthermore, we shall discuss morality as a type of game, yet something you cannot opt out of, as something Foot describes as 'inescapable'. (Foot 1972: 311).

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.

Similarly in the case of adopting subjectivism, as long as the person committing the action thought this action was morally permissible then that statement could not be made. If we adopted ethical nihilism, statements like this would not be able to have any truth value. Since ethical nihilism states that there are no correct answers whatsoever we could not state that something was wrong and give it a truth factor. In order to do this there must be some correct alternative but nihilism states there is no such