Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism are two schools of thought that view morality differently. Both Kant and Mill understand and agree that some form of morality exists. They both recognize that the concept of morality applies to all rational beings and that an action can be deemed as moral or immoral based on reason. Despite being reasonably in agreement about what morality is; there are numerous important differences between Mill and Kant’s perception of morality. Kant believes that there is a supreme principle of morality which he referred to it as the Categorical Imperative, whereas Mill held a Utilitarianism view on morality.
Ones moral character can be determined by virtue ethics. The virtue ethics of someone’s character can as well be based on how they behave under certain circumstances. In sport, moral character is related to many aspects including cheating. Laws and rules are also based on this theory. Everyone needs to obey the same set of rules to have a good moral character.
Ethical and Philosophical Questions about Value and Obligation I Recall the distinction between metaethics and normative ethics. Normative ethics deals with substantial ethical issues, such as, What is intrinsically good? What are our moral obligations? Metaethics deals with philosophical issues about ethics: What is value or moral obligation? Are there ethical facts?
We must take this issue with more than a grain of salt and step up and do what is right for our athletes of all sports. It is arguably one of the most debatable issues in sports today. “Doping” as it sometimes referenced as, refers to the use of a prohibited subst... ... middle of paper ... ... If being honest, ethical and trustworthy comes into question when it comes to playing a competitive sport, what is the point of playing that sport when all fairness is in jeopardy? Playing any sport on a professional level is a privilege and must be held with the upmost respect of the rules and regulations.
Ellis Cashmore, a professor of culture, media and sport at Staffordshire University in the UK, wrote an article with the title “It's Time to Allow Doping in Sport”. “We could allow the utilization of performance enhancing substances, monitor the results and realize the whole process transparent”. However, Cashmore is mistaken because he looks out on the effects of allowing doping for athletes. I will discuss what Cashmore called the “predicted” objections to his article, which they are: -This is cheating -Taking drugs is wrong -Sports stars are role models -Fans would turn off sport This is cheating. In Cashmore point of view he thinks that changing the regulations and raising the awareness that the permitted aids might be more dangerous than drugs can fix this problem.
Contrastingly to both, meta-ethics is the study of the meaning of ethics itself, gauging the meaning of ethical language, and taking into consideration the authority of moral claims and the effects of personal preference. Bearing this in mind, it is possible to note that meta-ethical theory poses questions such as 'Can we define which action is 'good', 'bad', 'right', or 'wrong'?' and again, 'Is it possible to give a definition to 'good', 'bad', 'right', or 'wrong' in themselves?' Admittedly, all four of these words are related from a moral point of view. But, if we could measure 'good' completely and accurately, then we would be able to mea... ... middle of paper ... ...tion.
There are several different connections between the terms 'ethics' and 'morals.’ In most cases, the term ‘ethics’ is synonymous to the term ‘morals.’ However, they can also be used to distinguish between the different areas within morality (Downie 33). Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. Morality is the system that describes the rules or criterias that guide human conduct. It is a system that is comprised of moral rules and principles that is used to differentiate between the right and the wrong. These moral rules and principles are otherwise known as "rules of conduct.” A theory is a structured set of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts.
The first theory suggests that humans are "inherently violent and sport is a relatively safe and controlled way to discharge aggression." The psychological theory says that violence is caused by frustration as one's efforts to reach a goal are blocked. The social learning theory explains that violence might be officially condemned and penalized but unofficially coaches, teammates, fans, and the media praise it. All three of these theories are accurate and can be used to explain the need for violent sports in our society. Smith feels that violence in sports can be either reduced or eliminated by doing a few simple things.
How is this formula applied though? Kantian philosophy is derived from the belief that ac... ... middle of paper ... ...eir judgement wisely enough to know that lying would create better outcomes in many situations. This essentially, would be a Utilitarian’s argument. Moral actions are based on consequences; ones which increase happiness or positive outcomes. Telling a lie to the murderer to send him astray would save a life, and consequently would be a moral action.
Another reason an ethical egoist would find her lie to be morally permissible is because of the gain the author makes from the fact that her friend benefits from the lie as well. Vaughn states that ethical egoists, “ . . . also have to take into account their interactions with others.