Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. 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.
Moral realists must argue that moral judgments have at least an initial plausibility, for if grave errors are made in either the causal connection or the delivery mechanism, it would not seem that there would be a valid reason for believing that any of the moral judgments we make are judgments of fact. As David Brink argues, “the degree of credibility of considered moral beliefs probably corresponds more closely with the credibility of these [credible theoretical beliefs] Ö All I claim is that considered moral beliefs have initial credibility.”4 Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
A person’s approval of something makes it morally right; a person’s disapproval of something makes it morally wrong. Cultural Relativism claims that what is morally right and wrong depends on the moral codes of certain cultures. In order for an individual to be moral, he must act in accord with the moral codes of the society to which he belongs. Even though there are great distinctions between these two theories, they both emphasize that moral standard cannot be determined without referring to s... ... middle of paper ... ...t or wrong? 4.
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.
The particularist and the generalist both think that the perfectly moral person is one who is aware of the moral reasons present in a situation. However, the particularist has a different view of what it means to be aware of these reasons. The particularist’s view is one that takes moral reasons to operate in the same way that other or more ordinary reasons of action function (Dancy, Jonathan). The particularist believes in variability. This means that the particularist doesn’t believe that we are required to apply our principles consistently or apply the same principle to similar cases.
Making Moral Decisions: The Synergistic-Reflective-Equilibrium Model ABSTRACT: 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. The first part of this paper defines the synergistic-reflective-equilibrium mode.
It defines the purpose of different actions carried out. Therefore, it is right to say that if an intention is good or evil, then it ought to be morally justified. However, the end does not justify the means, in other words a wrong/evil intention does not result in a good moral act. In conclusion, the understanding of morality builds a core perspective to better objectives and defined goals. Work Cited Sciglitano, Ki and Peter Savastano.
Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory. Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110).
An objection can be that his conception is limited because it only deals with morals and leaves the legal point of view aside. But does that really matter? Waldron is talking only about morality, and since legal positivism suggest that law and morality should be separated so they can be analyzed in greater details, shouldn't it not matter if he was not focusing on the legal matter but enhancing the idea of morality that will later on serve and enhance legality? an overall look at Waldron’s ideas can conclude that his ideas are logical and hard to rebut because he speaks the truth about having a moral right to do wrong.
If not, then it is wrong to use such a maxim as the basis for an action. This essay seeks to address the issue of what is morality and whether it is determined by duty or inclination. Morality is def... ... middle of paper ... ... yield. As such Kant may be justified to an extent in saying that most of our action are carried out in self –interest. More so it can be said that there exist a significant minority of people who can be said to have achieved a higher sense of morality and as such do things without reasoning or a sense of duty to moral law but out of what they personally believe to be right or wrong.