In Ross's discussion of moral epistemology in What Makes Right Acts
Right?, he makes a number of claims for moral objectivity and a set of
prima facie duties. In Ross's view, these prima facie duties
should govern how we behave in every sort of moral situation. Much of
Ross's argument depends on this duties being innate and objective. This
paper will criticize Ross's claims, specifically on the grounds of the
existence and objectivity of these prima facie duties. I intend
to show that Ross's comparisons about prima facie duties and
mathematical axioms are baseless and false.
In order to criticize Ross's claims, we must first discuss exactly what
he says in What Makes Right Acts Right?. Ross claims that there
are some of self-evident, objective moral truths which should govern
the way we make decisions. These truths, or duties, should be considered
and applied in any situation that involves a moral decision. In a moral
dilemma, these duties must be analyzed and compared in order to find the
most applicable one. This correct duty is the one that must be
carried out in order to do good, or right. It is important
to note that in every moral dilemma, Ross says there is a correct
answer, even if we are unable to attain it.
Now, the crux of Ross's argument rests on his ideas regarding prima
facie duties. Ross states that these duties are ``part of the fundamental
nature of the universe'' as mathematical axioms are. I intend to show
that these mathematical axioms are just as arbitrarily defined as Ross's
prima facie duties. As an example, let us consider the Triangle
Sum Law (the sum of the interior angles of a triangle must sum to 180
degrees). Now, this is a fundamental axiom of geometry, but it is neither
...
... middle of paper ...
...ues (at least to rational persons)
evoke very different emotions and feelings than things like mathematical
facts. You may say that some are merely subscribing to these mathematical
facts and take them for granted. But surely, even those that subscribe
to some set of moral guiding principles (through organized religion or
a similar practice) may disagree with some of the proponents. It is the
grounds of moral disagreement which is detrimental to Ross's argument
here.
I hope to have shown that Ross's ideas about prima facie duties and
how they relate mathematical axioms are not sound. Neither axioms or
prima facie duties have a self-evident nature, which hurts Ross's ideas
of objectivity in these rules. Also, the state of moral disagreements and
consensus on moral issues seems to suggest that Ross was wrong about his ideas
regarding moral epistemology.
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Harry Truman known as for having a heroic presidency served our country as the 33rd president of the United States after the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April. Truman only had a high school education and was only vice president for 82 days before the passing of FDR. He had inherited the huge tasks of leading the United States through the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. Truman’s legacy as the nation’s leader is on point of controversial decisions.
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. 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.
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.
There is an ethical theory that we covered this quarter that I strongly agree with which is the theory of justice. There is a specific thinker that surprised me at and made me think about moral issues in a new way. That thinker was Socrates who surprised me and made me think about moral issues in a new way. I feel that socrates is someone who challenged what you thought or believed about ethics before taking this class. Those dialog investigates two vital inquiries. Those 1st inquiry may be “what will be justice?” socrates addresses this address both As far as political groups and As far as those unique man alternately souk. He does this to address those second Furthermore driving inquiry of the dialogue: “is those simply persnickety happier
Moral relativism has two conceptualized frameworks that describe statements. These are Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. Cognitivism in a nutshell is merely the opposite of non-cognitivism. Relatively, it is the certainty that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. Moral judgments generally dwell in this arena due to the element that people incline to make moral judgments a large part in their decision-making and anything which is non-existent in moral values tends to be discarded. The spectrum that Cognitivism belongs to is so broad that it encompasses the milieus of moral realism, moral subjectivism and error theory. Hillary Putnam in his book, Ethics without ontology states that ethical (including mathematical) sentences can be factual and unprejudiced
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.
Morality is, in many ways, a thorn in philosophy’s foot, struggling to abide by the standard of intellectual rigor typically held in the philosophical tradition. This is not particularly surprising. There is a high emotional and personal investment placed in morality and as such, even great minds can falter in their logical demands of morality. The issue of objectivism in ethics is particularly problematic. Lewis Vaughn’s arguments against ethical relativism in Bioethics show the difficulty of dismissing said theory’s possibility, all the while failing to provide his own evidence on behalf of ethical objectivism.
You will need to sum down for the first four orientations and sum across some of the rows, then sum down and divide by two for the last orientation. The chart should make it clear.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It usually criticizes any denial that a moral hierarchy can be analyzed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. A few weeks ago a “Unite the Right Rally” took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest against the removal of the General Robert E. Lee statue. This protest was considered one of the largest white Supremacist events in recent United States history. Marchers descended carrying torches and started yelling slogans such as “Blood and soil” and “White lives matter”. This historical event was absolutely outrageous, but it made us all focus on moral equivalence and figuring out the appropriate actions to take.
The sum of the measures of the exterior angles of a polygon, one at each vertex, is 360.
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).