James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
To begin with, Rachels believes in treating people as
…show more content…
As abstract it is to think of a list has having the power to motivate people to do better I agree with some of the items that they may help. For instance, having duties and responsibilities definitely makes a person better in the since that they develop the habits needed from the duty and responsibility. Rachels says something similar saying “there is some combination of virtues, motives, and methods of decision making that is best for me given my circumstances, personality, and talents-“best” in the sense that it will optimum the chances of my having a good life, while optimizing the chance of other people having good lives, too” (Rachels 180). Overall, even with all these different theories. I agree with Rachels, that utilitarian may be the way to go for a satisfactory moral theory. In conclusion, a satisfactory moral theory may develop from many different views. For Rachels’ view it was a matter of modesty, reason, desert, motives, consequences, community and justice and fairness. Although I agreed partially with Rachels view, overall I believe a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best
There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first have to do with duty and obligation. For example: "Thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal." "You just keep your promises." These judgments often uphold minimal standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ‘ought.’ The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments employ as their most general terms "happiness," "excellence," and perhaps "flourishing" (in addition to "the good life"). For example: "Happiness requires activity and not mere passive consumption." "The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health." I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all particular ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.
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.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational failings. This concept is supported by Shafer-Landau and Korsgaard while thinkers like Williams and Foot disagree with such a claim. It should be understood that morality and rationality are intertwined were a moral failing correlates with a rational failing.
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.
In Intro to Ethics, we have discussed each moral theory in the context of how the theories dealt with the theory of right conduct and with the deontic status the action had. When we looked at how each theory we talked about dealt with deontic status, we looked at how the actions were right or wrong. The main theories we looked at this semester that dealt with right conduct were utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory, and virtue ethics. Although each of these moral theories has its own flaws, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the strongest and most superior out of all the moral theories.
Can suicide be justified as morally correct? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant answers in, “The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Kant discusses many questions with arguable answers, which explains why he is one of the most controversial philosophers still today. Throughout Kant’s work, multiple ideas are considered, but the Categorical Imperative is one of the most prevalent. Though this concept is extremely dense, the Categorical Imperative is the law of freedom that grounds pure ethics of the metaphysics of ethics. Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
Baber, Harriet. "Morality and Moral Theories." Morality and Moral Theories. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
One of the central developments was to establish what principles is shared by people of different faiths, as Christianity is not completely universal nor necessarily natural in all of its principles set forth. Grotius took part in initiating this development as he denounced the notion of universal Christianity, and suggested a better degree of validity would be possible under a less biased set of moral principle (Coleman, pg. 67). This development was found to be what is most “reasonable” for mankind by modern theorists such as John Finnis, yet branching from the notions set forth by prior theorists. Finnis’ theory operates in the absence of a divine figure, yet still holds a universal standard of what is “good.” This reasonable notion is further evaluated as moral principles are naturally embedded into human beings, and a particular system such as religion is not necessary to reflect such (Coleman, pg.
Moral theory helps us determine what is right or wrong. It helps us to answer and respond the question, what makes an act right or wrong and how can we correct the conclusions about our morality. The practical goal of moral theory has to do with our desire to find the answer between right and wrong. For example, Descartes used rationalism to try to find the solid foundation for knowledge. He tries to find something that does not have any doubt or error to it. Ethics keeps people and our Earth morally grounded. If we have no expectations, we would not be where we are today in the world with all of the advances, and friendships. The theoretical aim of moral theory is to discover those underlying features of the actions that make them morally
This moral philosophy must begin with the nature of myself and all mankind. Humans are created with the imago dei, or image of God, which will have profound impact as I will demonstrate soon. Unfortunately this imago dei is corrupted and leaves mankind dead and incapable of action that leads to God or actions that yield eternal benefit. This is not to say that man is incapable of actions recognized as “good.” It is due to this image that even fallen man is capable of amazing and good acts. This problem is solved through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. To use an analogy, I am not sick and in need of a doctor, or lacking skill and in need of a coach, but rather I was dead and in need of a savior. This transaction, initiated and provided by God, transformed me from the inside out. Simply put I am now free to live for God in the world being transformed day by day to become more like Christ.