Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
intimations of morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: intimations of morality
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Intuitionism
Intuitionism came about as a post-utilitarian perspective, and was
largely developed as an ethical theory by Moore, Pritchard and Ross.
As the name of the theory tells us it is concerned with humans
intuition, Sidgwick came to the conclusion that ethics was not based
on a unifying principle but rather on human intuition. Today, an
intuitionist is thought of as someone who holds particular views about
the way in which we come to find out what actions are right and which
are wrong. Apparently, we group basic moral principles because of our
‘intuition’. Moral principles are capable of being true and known
through a special faculty; ‘moral intuition’. W.D. Ross and Pritchard,
claimed that they are ‘facts’ about what is morally right and wrong
and that our understanding of these is sufficient to deserve the title
‘knowledge’. We know that something is good by intuition: it is
self-evident, “good is something known directly by intuitionism”[1]
G. E. Moore wrote that what is good, or morally good, cannot be
defined by humans, just as yellow also cannot. We all know what yellow
is in sensory terms but the only way to describe yellow is to use
other colours which does not help someone who is colour blind, “Good
can be defined no more successfully than yellow.”[2] However, we know
instantly what yellow is, and we know instinctively what is morally
good; they are both self-evident to us. Moore thought that what makes
an action good or otherwise are the aims of the person in question
when carrying out that action. Moore then went on to make a
distinction between the aims and the consequences of an action: the
aims are decided intuitively before the action and determine its moral
nature. The consequences are determined retrospectively, therefore not
determining morality.
Harold Arthur Pritchard developed Moore’s ideas further, he thought
that “moral obligation just is, and it can be perceived by our
intuition.” This means that moral obligation is something that a
person could just know, it was not quite the same as feeling certain
While right-versus-wrong are easily distinguish, right-versus-right dilemmas often include one of four dilemmas in choosing what it truly right. The first is truth versus loyalty.
A disturbing thought about man’s ethical barometer is that most of the theories, categories and principles emanate from the point of man’s reason. There is a cause to shudder at the thought of man as the absolute authority of what is right and wrong; what is ethical and what is not. Born into a sinful nature, man will ultimately make decisions that will lead to a moral philosophy that is shaky at best. Even philosophers with the best of intentions fall short to God’s model for the order, organization, and meting out of ethical actions. Because of man’s finite vision of what should be done to improve the present situation, mankind will always be found lacking in making the best ethical decisions; not being able to see the long term outcome and the impact those decisions and actions would have on others in the world.
Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, a Jewish rabbi, wrote extensively about many topics. Luzzatto’s writings can be applied to us today and from which we can learn a great deal. Two of the topics that we discussed in seminar that Luzzatto addresses were vigilance and alacrity. Vigilance is the process of regarding someone's actions and affairs and about knowing if your actions are right or wrong. In order to be vigilant, two parts are necessary. The first part involves determining what is considered evil and what is good. By doing this, you can make the right decision and do the right thing. The second part is to “see if his own deeds are good or evil,” which means that you have to decide if your actions were good or evil. This applies at
Since we are made as free moral agents with the ability to choose the standards by which we will live some in society determine their right and wrong behavior based on their feelings of particular situations. For example, a person who grew up in a culture that is less fortunate than others and steals for survival might feel he hasn’t done anything wrong. However, this type of behavior is not acceptable in our society because it violates our obligation to be obedient to the law, not to mention the disadvantage of consequences one faces for their decisions. The advantage to displaying moral character by far out weights the consequences in that choosing to do right creates fairness by way of harmony. Of course, justice requires that victims are compensated for the wrong done to them, and anyone committs a crime must bear the ...
For many years now, people have always wondered what ethical principle is the right one to follow. These individuals are all seeking the answer to the question that the ethical principles are trying to clarify: What defines moral behavior? The Divine Command Theory and the theories of cultural relativism are two principles of many out there that provide us with explanations on what our ethical decisions are based on and what we consider to be our moral compass in life. Even though these two theories make well-supported arguments on why they are the right principle to follow, it is hard to pinpoint which one should guide our choices because of the wide array of ethical systems. Therefore, what is morally right or wrong differs greatly depending
end product of moral reasoning is a particular behavior, and as a person learns or completes a
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
...ecision making process that takes place when ethical dilemmas arise, but that it also seems refreshing as it takes us back to a time when society knew right from wrong and chose right. However, we also feel that beings capable of reason do not, as a whole, follow inherent duties. They are not always subject to imperatives which push them to act in the correct manner regardless of personal gain, or in the appropriate manner for personal gain.
The Natural Law stated that humans have a moral knowledge/reason that makes us able to decide what’s right. This has caused various debates on whether people did the right because it was the right thing to do or whether they did it because that’s
How do you determine what is right or what is wrong? Personally, I feel that from within ourselves, we know when we have done right and when we have done wrong. This may not stop someone from doing wrong, but, within themselves, I believe that they know they are doing wrong. I believe that someone knows when they have hurt someone else feelings or caused harm to someone. Consequently, I do not make up a culture, which has merits on determining right or wrong. Within this report, ethical relativism will be define and discussed how it relates to right and wrong as well as the corruption that I discussed in the previous assignment.
Nearly all of mankind, at one point or another, spends a lot of time focusing on the question of how one can live a good human life. This question is approached in various ways and a variety of perspectives rise as a result. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Some seek it through the reading of classic, contemporary, theological and philosophical texts while others seek it through experiences and lessons passed down from generations. As a result of this, beliefs on what is morally right and wrong, and if they have some impact on human flourishing, are quite debatable and subjective to ones own perspective. This makes determining morally significant practices or activities actually very difficult.
... deliberations that should affect our selection of a way of action. Having a process for ethical decision creation is extremely effective. When adopted consistently, the method develops into a recognizable system that people can manage to work with automatically in devoid of consulting the precise steps. Although all decisions should be handled equally, balancing act takes precedence as to what options are better because pleasing both sides may at times be untenable.
When asked what is the definition of ethics, many responded that being moral meant doing the right thing. But how can we justify what is a good action and what is a bad action? All humans were created equal, but our principles, and ways of thinking can be extremely different. Some may say doing the right thing means following your heart, your inner feelings and intuition. But emotions can be misleading. Others say in order to do what is the morally right thing means to follow the law and do what is right by society, to be accepted. But today’s society is judgmental and can be corrupted with numerous opinions due to the diversity of cultures. So what does it mean to be ethical? Being ethical means doing what is right in terms of virtues, fairness, duties, responsibilities, obligations, and moral believes all which derived from cultures and family backgrounds.
Now we will consciously or unconsciously make decisions which we think are for the best for us, for the ones we care for, or for the society or organisation as a whole. In order to make wiser decisions we should know what contributes in making a good or a bad choice. We should know what all options are there available to us and mak...
The distinction between doing and allowing can be made, but the moral applications of it vary based on the situation to which they are applied. It can be argued, though, that when doing and allowing both bring about the same consequence, there is no moral difference in which action is chosen. Even though many different distinctions can be made between how doing and allowing bring about different sequences, they both bring about the same means; therefore, logical reasoning and a level head must be used to evaluate the right course of action.