Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
kantian ethics vs
exposition on kantian ethics
immanuel kant moral ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: kantian ethics vs
Philosopher, Christine Korsgaard, assesses her idea of the capacity for normative self government, in her her short writing, Morality and the Distinctiveness of Human Action. In her writing she argues that a form of life, whether human or animal/insect, it is not one controlled by guidelines and principles but is one governed by instinct desire and emotion. Korsgaard makes her claim with examples and premises on intentions. Korsgaard claims that the essence of morality relies on the normative self government and believes that laws in society do not protect those who are citizens but those who share the interest that the laws were made to protect. Korsgaard 's first argument that I believe is strong is the premise that in society we …show more content…
Whereas people and certain things such as our heart pumping blood have purposes as well but just different types of purposes. Each purpose is determined at whatever the object, animal, or person’s intentions are. Each movement has a purpose or intention depending on how you look at it. I see this correlated to her argument of normative self governing because animals can not follow or create self governing laws just like humans because they serve different purposes and have different desires. Each animal however, does have their own morals that they follow depending on their desires. Some animals have different customs and things they find important in order to fulfill their intentions. At this rate the animal is aware of it’s purposes and how to achieve them. She believes that human beings are the only animals who live under the type of society where people follow a specific set of morals. When humans become aware of the morals they become aware of evaluations, consequences and self consciousness. As a Kantian, Korsgaard favors whether the end result will be beneficial. The reason she believes in intentions and desire is because of that fact that she believes in looking at the end goal in order to figure out the right and wrong
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
To begin the assessment of Sally’s moral theory we must look at the strengths of the theory, I have chosen to focus on autonomy, as it is vital when defining a prescriptive ethical theory particularly when individuals interact with each other. The purpose of the state is to promote the welfare of its citizens. When the individual has the ability to pursue autonomous desires they thereby allow humanity to develop while promoting their personal goals. Challenges arise when the individual has no goals or that their goals are not recognized. Communist societies where the...
Instead, she takes her argument to demonstrate that the reflective nature of the human mind entails that agents identify themselves with standards which dictate how they should act (103-104). This means that “autonomy is the source of obligation,” because agents are lawmakers who self-impose the standards ascribed by their accepted identities. Korsgaard explains this in terms of one 's “thinking self” and “acting self.” When we reflect on how to act, our acting self submits to the authority of the thinking self, which is charged with determining the best course of action (104). In this way, we have the authority to be lawmakers to ourselves because “we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do”
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Normative ethics is a branch of ethics which attempts to illuminate how humans should live their lives, and more specifically how to make moral decisions concerning oneself and others, according to c...
A society that is ruled by liberty contains morals, morals that come with rights that must be respected in order to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously they must accept an individuals “right to do wrong” from a moral perspective. Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views.
The notion of individualism is extremely important in exercising the duty people have to cease from the...
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
In the reading of The Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard discusses four basic theories for the justification of morality: Voluntarism, Realism, Reflective Endorsement, and the Appeal to Autonomy. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defining Voluntarism, outlining the argument that Korsgaard presents for Voluntarism, and explain her criticism for why it fails. First of all, let me start off by defining the meaning of Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The will, as referred to in the previous context can be defined as the authority or higher power that creates a purpose or intention and makes decisions and choices.
Morality binds people into groups. It gives us tribalism; it gives us genocide, war, and politics. But it also gives us heroism, altruism, and sainthood (“Jonathan Haidt Quotes.”). This quote sums the importance of morality perfectly. Even though morality may not be beneficial when the lives of the many out way the lives of the few or if it endangers your own well-being, we have an obligation to understand the morality of different people whether it’s socially, culturally, or religiously. When we fail to take into account these difference we breed conflict and eventually war.
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologist have tried for several years to develop a theory to how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958), his moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012). Kohlberg’s moral development theory consist of 3 different levels each containing 2 stages altogether making 6 stages of moral development, as Kohlberg conducted
The unique ability that each and every individual possesses that enable him/her to control their actions is known as free will. Free will is directly connected to two other vital philosophical issues: freedom of action and moral accountability, which is the main reason why the debate is so vital. Simply stated, a person who has free will refers to an individual’s ability to choose his or her route of action. However, animals also appear to suit this measure, further adding to the debate because free will is typically thought to only be possessed by human beings (Broad 1990).
Governing ourselves is an important issue that has been discussed since the beginning of History. With Aristotle came the idea that we are “political animals” and that we are therefore forced to form a society. That is how we came to form states that need to be governed according to laws. The aim of these laws is problematic: for classical philosophers, the aim of the laws is and must be the Common Good: happiness for everyone in the state, which is regarded as a perfect community. This conception puts the benefit of all above the benefit of each and gives to the state the responsibility to be rational and moral.
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.