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.
Impartial Morality Introduction: T HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality.
Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all peoples at all times. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture.
Related to this idea is moral skepticism, which holds that we can’t know any moral truths, and moral subjectivism, which holds that moral views are merely inner states in a person and that they can’t be compared to the inner states of another person. However believing in the above solves no problems, if nobody is right and nobody is wrong. The second way is to believe that there is no universal truth, that each culture has its own set of rules that are valid and apply to that culture, they don’t interfere with our rules and we don’t interfere with theirs, this is called ethical relativism. This belief is viewed as an attitude of tolerance. This belief solves conflicts in the idea that whatever the majority deems to be the moral rule is the rule to follow.
He refers to this type of ethics as Quandary Ethics (QE) and raises some questions in criticisms of it. Pincoffs begins his piece by establishing a foundation and clarifying QE as opposed to classical ethics. Quandary ethics is defined as an attempt to provide rational grounds for difficult decisions to resolve perplexities that arise in problematic situations; "the ultimate relevance of ethics is to the resolution of problematic situations in which we fall," (191). QE is a newcomer because it does not deal with moral enlightenment, education, or the good for man as classic philosophies do; QE is based upon practicality and applicability and is less concerned with general rules or guidelines for moral behavior. He illustrates his point by comparing QE to Aristotle.
This theory judges the morality of an action based on the actions adherence to a set of rules. It is explained as an action is morally right if it is required by duty, and should not conflict with any other action required by another duty. By doing our duty we do what is valuable, this theory focuses on the structure of moral judgment. One should act regardless of your own aims or self-interest. Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973.
Moral realism is the belief that there are moral facts, and ethical judgements are objective statements. This viewpoint means that regardless of where you live or were raised in the world, regardless of what religion you practice or what your beliefs are, morals facts exist. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have moral skepticism. Moral skepticism is the position that there are no moral facts, that morality is purely a matter of opinion, preference, or one 's personal beliefs. This view means that while some people or even a large part of society may agree that certain things are right or wrong, the fact that they agree on an issue does not make that view any more “morally correct” than one person having the opposite view.
Action Based Ethical Systems One criticism would be that Action- Based Ethics lack a motivational component. Critics claim that action based ethics are uninspiring and very negative. They would say that it fails to inspire someone to action. Most of the commandments and rules in such systems are innately negative "Thou shalt notâ€¦" There is something unfit about a morality which is so unevenly defined in terms of "Thou shalt nots", emphasising innocence instead of an "energetic pursuit of the Good". The only sure principle is a reciprocal duty to do no harm.
Immanuel Kant, Kantian deontology, is considered a fundamental figure of modern philosophy. Of his many principles, one of the most interesting by far is that of his take on moral law and duty ethics. It is Kant’s belief that an act of duty does not stem from personal ideals, but that it should come from respect for the moral law. There is no place for personal beliefs in these values. As will later be discussed in detail, Martin, Meaningful Work, disagrees with this opinion; Martin believes personal ideals and morals play a large role.
Exploration of Deontological Ethics Deontological ethics is concerned not with the action itself but the consequences of the action. Moral value is conferred by virtue of the actions in themselves. If a certain act is wrong, then it is wrong in all circumstances and conditions, irrespective of the consequences. This view of ethic stands in opposition to teleological views such as utilitarianism, which hold the view that the consequences of an action determine its moral worth. Kant’s theory is deontological because it’s based on duty.