The first formulation states: “act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This means that one will not allow the other to do something that he/she is not willing to accomplish. Basically, you are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises. Moreover, when this maxim is universalized it forms a contradiction in concept, because making a promise you can’t keep disagrees with the convention of promises (a promise, by definition, is meant to be
The argument from queerness puts it clear that if objective values exist, then they would be relations of a very strange sort and of which if we are aware of them there would be some special faculty of intuition or moral perception which will be totally different from how we know everything else. According to Mackie (653), although intuition has long been out of favor, it is more important to note that the objectivist view of values commits fully to the central thesis of intuitionism. Despite the fact that people have believed that moral problems can be solved or moral judgments can be made by just sitting and having an ethical intuition is simply a travesty of actual moral thinking. This being a real complex process requires some inputs of the distinctive sort which are either form of arguments or premises or both. One way to bring out this queerness is to have a look at Plato’s Forms that gives a dramatic picture of what objective values would be and also the argument of Hume on reason referring it to a stage of all sorts of knowing and also reasoning.
Why Should We Be Moral? - Protocol Paper 6 Recall: In the “Why Should We Be Moral,” Rachels states several points: 1) The Ring of Gyges shows how acting immorally can occasionally be to one’s advantage. Glaucon argues that all of us would behave like Gyges. 2) Rachels points out that it is a good thing if other people live morally, but it becomes another matter if you are bound by your own morals. 3) Rachels talks about a well-known idea that right living consists in respect to God’s commands.
Every rational individual would agree that we, as humans, have basic rights to life and freedom. Because we value our own basic rights, we necessarily should value other’s. It would be wrong to violate another individual’s basic rights. Therefore, it is true that any correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices. Because the first premise and second premise are true, it necessarily follows that the conclusion is also true: utilitarianism is not the correct moral theory and should be
However, we cannot explain this charge of wrongness any further and are once again reliant on Kant’s Prize Essay explanation that we know the good as a result of a psychological feeling. Even though these two approaches may have appeal, they possess problems. The first approach leads to a harsh conclusion on whether certain acts are right or wrong based on aggregate results.
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable.
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.
This action is done regardless of the consequences afterward because duty is more important. To determine what rules are valid, the Categorical Imperative has two important checks: the rules must be universally applicable, meaning anyone can do follow it and it will not change due to certain circumstances; and that the rules must never make other people use people purely for the purpose of achieving his or her goals. If a rule passes those checks, it is valid and must be follow. Analyze: While there is no real list of