This theory state that people should make decisions because of who they are and not because some rules or law that guides them. If people make decisions based merely on anticipation of only good consequences there would not be new discovery. Discoveries are the unknown and in the unknown you cannot anticipate the consequences of what we do not know so in other words there would be no risk taking. Virtue ethics theory allows one to make decisions by evaluating a situation, weighing circumstances and coming to conclusion on the best possible result. It is not dependent on the greatest outcome because not all right decisions leads to the greatest utility.
The problem of his instrumental argument is successfully resolved with the distinction between self - sovereignty and self - ownership. With this key concept in soft paternalism, individual liberty does not contradict human excellence, and thus does not produce a consequentialist argument. After analysis, the ambiguous concepts of harm and self - regarding actions become clearer, because soft paternalism provides for compatibility between moral obligations to paternalistic actions and the self - governing realm. Soft paternalism recognizes a distinct division of roles between the individual and others, which is more useful than that of the harm principle and more flexible than that of hard paternalism. In this way, the moral obligation to avoid inaction, if such inaction causes harm to others, provides a ground for justifiable paternalism.
“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth. Of course people have different values, morals, opinions, views, etc.
This course of action cannot simply be justified through consequentialist views such as the DDE, where the overall outcome is the only important decision factor. Non-consequentialist factors are of equal importance in the morality of an action. When viewing MacAskill’s cases and his response to the harm-based objection, it is important to consider the non-consequentialist, right-based theory of Libertarianism that maintains if an act violates a right, then it is morally wrong; individual rights are a fundamental element in deeming an action morally permissible. Libertarians do not focus on consequences when evaluating actions, instead believing that rights are so important that they must not be violated even to produce better consequences. This belief goes directly against the DDE, which evaluates an action solely based on the consequences produced.
He claims that his doubt is reasonable on the theoretical level, and his radical doubt will not impede him from practical life, since he is only consider the question of epistemology. In other words, his skeptical method does not concern local issues or physical matters in the external world, but only with abstract, general truths, whose validity is not dependent upon “whether they are actually existent or not” (Descartes, trans. Haldane I-7). Indeed, Descartes’ method of doubt is revolutionary in the sense that the uses doubt as a tool to search for a general, firm, and universal principle that serves as the basis of knowledge and an antidote for skepticism. The method he invented — the radical and methodical doubt —is a reproducible model for demarcation between subjective opinions and objective truths.
There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality. Some actions, like journeys, have value regardless of the outcomes they produce. Williams brings this point about to show how the utilitarian’s focus on consequences might not be the best way to assign value to actions, since it has no way of accounting for the intrinsic values actions may have. Here I have to agree with Williams. The manner in which consequentialist judge actions does not seem to allow any room for considering a person’s intent behind choosing to commit that act.
My belief is that there is a single, universal code. So my moral code emcompasses my own beliefs of what should be right and what should be wrong. I agree with the idea that what is seen as right may be right for one, can be wrong for another, but ultimately there is a morally correct thing to do (Source A). My moral code is mostly based around respect and honesty. Respect also includes
The Skeptical Argument: Hands and Brains-in-Vats (BIVs) Premise 1 (P1): If I know that I've hands, I know that I'm not a handless brain-in-a-vat. Premise 2 (P2): I don't know that I'm not a handless brain-in-a-vat. Conclusion (C): So I don’t know that I’ve hands. (P1,P2) This essay considers the argument above. If the argument is sound, we must necessarily accept the conclusion that we do not know that we have hands.
When you are giving advice to someone through this expression you do not mean that you are both yourself and the other person, what you mean is that you take the spot of the other person in the situation. If person X were person Y, then X would be inserted into the logical expression in the spot of Y and all other components of the situation would be held constant. I would also argue that that the flipped antecedent has nothing to do with the original statement in this format and they should not be compared to one
Ethical relativism tells us that there is no objective right or wrong. That is, whether an action is right or wrong rely on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. Ethical relativism is the theory that fill that morality is relative to the standards of one 's culture. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For ethical there are no universally accepted ethical standard that can be applied to everyone at same times.