Language is used to communicate, but not to thoroughly explain. How then can moral judgement be passed when actions cannot be thoroughly explained, according to Nietzsche? The traditional concept of responsibility uses causality to attempt to understand
His choice to “take one’s route analytically from common cognition to the determination of its supreme principle” suggests a causality (Kant 4:392): “common cognition” guides the rational agent to the categorical imperative (the “supreme principle”), which allows the agent the ability to create moral legislation. Yet, Kant’s language here, describing his method of inquiry, is far from supportive of an entirely constructivist view of morality. His movement from “common cognition” to the “determination of its supreme principle” is rhetorical, not philosophical. The possessive pronoun “its” in the phrase “the determination of its supreme principle” suggests that, rather than common cognition being the guiding force of the supreme principle of morality, it is the principle which guides cognition. Hence, the supremacy of this principle over cognition and rationality contradicts the constructivist position that reason is the cause of
When we act, whether or not we reach our ends that we intend to pursue, what we control is the reason behind those actions not the consequences of those actions. Kant presents the categorical imperative to pursue and establish the meaning of morality. Of the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, the second formulation is perhaps the most instinctively persuasive. However, in spite of its intuitive appeal, even the most basic elements of the second formulation are surprisingly unclear and even controversial. The objective of this paper is to offer a consistent account of these issues, while recognizing alternative interpretations that Kant talks about.
Act Utilitarianism, being a hedonistic view, promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest good, however Rule Utilitarianism is based on rules of thumb, which may contradict themselves. For example, Rule Utilitarianism makes progress in the sense of being moral saints. This is based on how it takes “into account the effects of the rule or practice itself” (pg. 137). Those whose needs have been met who want to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate promote the greater good.
As a utilitarian, you must follow the principle of utility - that is, every action must be optimific, in that they must do more to improve overall well-being for every living species than any other possible action that could have been taken. In order to define whether an action is optimific, one would first determine what is intrinsically good; those being happiness, autonomy, knowledge, and virtues. A utilitarian only values happiness overall. Next, one must determine what is intrinsically bad, and examples of those are physical pain, mental anguish, sadistic impulses, and the betrayal of innocent lives; though, utilitarianism finds faring poorly in life as intrinsically bad. Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions.
The normative theories are the branch of philosophy that studies ethical behavior. The major normative theories are egoism, utilitarianism, Kantianism and virtue ethics. Egoism and Utilitarianism are strongly related they lie under consequentialist theories. From its name, consequentialist theories demonstrate that the action depends on its consequence. The difference between the two is that egoism focuses on self-interest, while utilitarianism addresses maximum happiness to everyone (Sansbury, Barry and Shaw, 2013).
The two ideas from this chapter that caught my interest are the relationship between Ethical egoism and utilitarianism. Ethical egoism is when individuals act in their own self-interests and crate situations in a way that pertain to one’s own benefit. There are three different types of egoisms, Individual, personal and universal ethical egoism. Individual egoism states that everyone ought to act in my own best self-interest which focuses on how other people treat them and will appear in a sort of way to get what they desire. Personal ethical egoism states that one ought to act in their own self-interests yet make no claims on what others should do.
Often times when people make bad decisions they base their decision on what they wish, rather than reality. Rational thinking is a learned skill that requires mental focus. Employees at BB&T should be committed to improving their ability to reason. Independent thinking is strongly encouraged as employees are challenged to use their minds. Furthermore, independent thinking can lead to innovation as ideas are challenged, which is essential in making a decision (BB&T Values,
Altruism theory can basically be defined as an act that an individual performs, in order to benefit someone else. Altruism can also be known as Ethical Altruism. Furthermore, this specific theory speaks about the good deeds that an individual would undertake to help and benefit someone else, even if it requires the sacrifice of self-interest. The action that the individual would tackle would consider being morally right if the result would benefit the recipient than the person actually conducting the action (Mastin, 2008) . Majority of the time these actions that are performed by individuals are not only about doing good for other personnel but also to protect these persons them from being harm or getting injured in a certain situation
Distribution is one the most controversial matter in Political Philosophy as far as Social Justice is concerned. In this essay, I will discuss about the capability approach as the plausible factor to consider when devising a distribution scheme. The capability approach takes a comprehensive or holistic approach which considers the abilities, functionings, opportunities, the being of an individual and other factors as well. The capability approach is a theoretical framework that involves two central normative claims that the freedom to attain well-being is of fundamental moral importance; and it needs to be understood in terms of people's capabilities, that is, their actual opportunities to do and be what they value and have reason to sustain