Moral Position
Dworkin's moral position is reasons, foundation theory and self-evident. Moral position has to give good (articulate) reasons for moral position to be valid. Things like prejudices and emotions are not justifiable characteristics for a moral position. In Dworkin's essay The Concept of a Moral Position, he elaborates on what a moral position really is, and what it isn't.
Dworkin states that moral position cannot be based on prejudice or emotion. According to Webster's dictionary, prejudice is the unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes of a hostile nature regarding a racial, religious or national group. Therefore a person cannot judge another based on these grounds of prejudice or emotion. The example that Mr. Dworkin uses is the judgment about homosexual people, in which he states that "homosexuals are morally inferior because they do not have heterosexual desires" (Dworkin, 25). This example does not give the moral position on homosexuality, but instead it gives a prejudice perspective on homosexuality without any clarification. Its just a matter of opinion that is used in this example that just doesn't give a justifiable reason to support his argument, yet it shows that the reason which is stated is completely true, (gay men will not have sex with women because they are homosexuals). Yet the statement is completely false, if you may because it lack supporting evidence for it to be a truly true statement.
Moral position cannot be based on emotional reaction according to Dworkin. Ones personal emotional reaction may not be the same personal reaction as another person. Therefore the moral position cannot be based on such conflicting views. Dworkin stated that "Moral position should justify t...
... middle of paper ...
...uch pursuits lead to the defrauding of others or to enormous suffering" (Beauchamp, 78). Furthermore the achievement of higher standings in the social class through egoism is perhaps what makes every person evil or immoral, if I may say so in this world. "It advocates that a politician who can get away with stealing millions of dollars from taxpayers ought to do so, and that clever physicians should selectively lie to their patients and their families in order to save themselves minor embarrassments and additional efforts that would cost them time and money" (Beauchamp, 78). No matter how we act in our lives, it is almost certain that we act in one form of egoism because we constantly want to further ourselves in life, and to be happier. Whether it is psychological or ethical egoism, we drive ourselves to live and conquer this world through one of these thoughts.
Egoism is a view that states that what a person wants is somewhat relevant to what humans actually do. There is two main types of egoism: psychological and ethical. These two views are very similar; because of this they can easily be interchanged. It is important to be able to recognize the dissimilarity of these two views.
egoism says that to determine a right action, you must apply the egoistic principle to individual
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
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 order to recognize moral issues, one should be aware that his/her actions may harm or benefit other individuals. Moral judgment involves evaluating and formulating all the possible solutions to a particular moral issue to determine the ones which have a moral justification (Drumwright et al 440). It involves reasoning around all possible solutions to know the ones that are ethically sound. The third component, moral intention refers to the motivation a particular moral decision over another. When faced with two solutions to a particular dilemma, one may select the one that will increase his individual power or the one which is morally right (Kalshoven et al
That morality is not relative, Rachel argues, “ Claims made by its proponents go beyond what the facts or arguments can establish”. She argues that we do not need morality because of culture differences and values based on where we are. Also talks about what can be learned from relativism and states that because of it morality is not needed and know what to do based on their moral codes.
...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals. From that opinion, one may assert that morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made.
There have been many ideas put forth towards how a human should or should not act, but psychological egoism tries to explain the motivation behind every action that he or she takes in his lifetime. Since psychological egoism is a claim which states how all humans act but not how they ought to act, it is categorized as a descriptive ethic (Rachels 52). This idea is attempting to put forth that all human actions are a means to an end, meaning that every action that a person takes is an effort to try to benefit oneself in some way, ...
Cross-culturally there are many difference between moral values. The extremes of these moral differences include cannibalism or incest which were normal in some cultures, closer to home there are value differences between liberals and conservatives or between the South and the West, any two cultures will have different ideas of moral values. There are three potential sources to base moral values on, faith, emotion, or reason. Individuals all have different ideas about what is moral and they conflict with one another. If morals were based solely reason everyone would eventually reach the same moral ground. If they could be based only on reason, it would mean universal morals. However, based on how we determine our morals now, where
Moral realism makes it conceivable to relate rules of reason to arbitrate moral statements. Thus, a moral conviction can be labeled as untrue or conflicting similar to truthful beliefs. Moral realism shines when there are moral discrepancies about the integrity of particular moral views. Moral realism considers that if two theories are opposing then clearly only one of them is true, and therefore the attention should be on looking for the factual moral belief. A moral realist is of the assessment that, amid all the facts, there is one moral fact which is significant and cannot be put on the back burner. According to moral realism, moral declarations are on occasion right. The influential element is the presence of a truth-making relation which brands the moral proclamations true. Accordingly, the things that create the truth of moral statements must actually be. For instance, a moral declaration such as “Cheating is bad” must be assessed in terms of its fact or falseness. It has to then be determined in terms of everyday associations established on its benefits and hindrances to an individual and the
Egoism Egoism is about ones’ goal to benefit the most for themselves over others. It is about achieving an end result that will maximize their profit and welfare. There are three different types of egoism: psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and rational egoism. Psychological egoism, ethical egoism and rational egoism are similar in that they are all about getting the best outcome for themselves. I am against egoism because I see it as a flawed philosophy where the egoist will try to get the most amount of profit, even though it may be selfish.
Moral thought is commonly, in most cases, seen as a subjective matter. Standing in contrast to objectivity and realism, independent of human nature and fact. Many times thought can be objective when taking the natural world into consideration. If you were to say twelve times 3 equals thirty-six, this conclusion is drawn from a factual base and a fact of our own experience. Your thoughts on this subject are drawn from a base prior to and independent of your knowledge, and in that respect, objective. With subjectivism, by contrast, are moral truths held by an individual based on personal experience. Consider the viewpoint that it is wrong to exploit those weaker than yourself. Although it is widely believed that this is a true statement, these judgments are not answerable
Ethical dilemmas surround us in our daily lives and we are unconsciously responsive through our opinions. Formulating one’s own opinion is important and holding your ground is imperative, especially in a society where everyone pushes their opinions onto others. Opinions are a reflection of an individual 's morals and his or her stance on ethical issues.