Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth. In contrast, doing what is good means more of doing what is kind, friendly, or morally exceptional. Kant states how doing your duty because it is your duty is the only reason that has moral worth, and says that if you do something good for someone, you do it because that is the morally right thing, and not because it is a morally good
Also, a single person cannot make an expectation for themselves from committing a wrong action. Kant felt that if an individual makes an exception for oneself then its consider wrong and unfair. The propose of universal law is to bring good actions because Kant want good to be spread universally and everyone is treated equally. The second imperative is hypothetical, which mainly focuses on the idea of humanity. Kant mainly focuses on that we should treat individuals with humanity.
Francesco Petrarch is the father of Humanism because he was very smart and took influential action that laid down the foundation for humanism all together. Petrarch laid the foundation for humanism. Firstly, Petrarch was one of the wisest people of his time. Petrarch “was regarded as the greatest scholar of his age” (Britannica.com). He cascaded a lot of his wisdom into his work, most notably his poetry.
Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the speaker holds on a particular issue. In other words, ethical subjectivism has no principle. Human emotions or feelings are the principles. Some claim that right and wrong are matters of opinion, what amounts as morally good or morally bad is “subjective”. So how one feels helps decide what is right and what is wrong.
Rawls has created a societal structure wherein the citizen behind the veil of ignorance is a rational citizen and is aware of the existence of other similarly rational citizens. Due to the nature of the society imagined by Rawls, justice as fairness is only a natural solution for it. In order to give shape to his conception of justice, Rawls defines the original position and justice as fairness is the optimum solution. Rawls is aware that the citizens behind the veil might not completely exclude the principle of utility; however Rawls assumes that the citizens will ‘reject the utility principle in the original position’ (Rawls, 29). Thus by clarifying the possible oversights in his own theory Rawls leaves space for explication (which is a characteristic of the criticism methodology) however in the end he assumes that due to the existence of the two principles in the concept of justice as fairness (the liberty principle and difference principle) rational citizens behind the veil of ignorance will neglect the principle of utility.
As we have seen, the broad emptiness charge is an adaptation of the traditional emptiness charge. This charge claims that the most distinctive and important feature in Kant’s ethics is not his claims about the particular ethical duties that we owe to each other, but his views about the nature of value. In other words, moral action wholly exists deep inside of me rather than elsewhere. However, I argue that the
In the first place, since all obligations are supreme, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts ( for instance, telling the truth about something or protecting somebody that you love). The second problem with his theory is that it doesn’t take feelings into account. What Kant does say is that any accidental maxims that would require coercing somebody into doing something without consent or deceiving someone is wrong ( O’Neill, 113). But what O’Neill says is that when we act on such maxims we treat others as mere means and as things rather than as ends in themselves. Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114).
Both philosophers acknowledged that the self was integral to the origin on the knowledge. The self was the start to philosophical reflection. Although Hume did not share the belief in the existence of the self compared to Descartes, he understood humanities with it; "our propension to confound identity with relation is so great, that we are apt to imagine something unknown and mysterious connecting the parts (126)" This exemplifies that Hume is conscious of the wants and desires of humans with their mind and soul. Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society.
As we saw above, Korsgaard's argument for the categorical imperative starts from our capacity of reflectivity. Allan Wood, Brian Leuck and Sergio Tenenbaum, interpret her as argueing that from here, the individual agent /constructs/ morality through an individual act. And furthermore, they believe that this perspective does not contain any restrictions upon what law he chooses to legislate. The problem they point to is different from the Prichardian challenge, but it is based in the same interpretation of the self as a source of normativity. Wood writes that in Korsgaard's argument the objective worth of humanity and of the moral law are created by human beings and are constituted by "an act or attitude of ours".
Moreover, the relationship between ethnographers and informants in the field, which form the bases of subsequent theorizing and conclusions, are expressed through social interaction in which the ethnographer participates, thus ethnographers help to construct the observation that become their data. I am taking an example from the book “Reflexive Ethnography.” In this book “Powdermaker argued that participant observation requires both involvement and detachment achieved by developing the ethnographer’s ‘role of stepping in and out of society.’ In order to incorporate such insights into research