Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad.
Hedonism postulates that pleasure is the all and only bearer of intrinsic value and pain is all and only bearer of intrinsic disvalue. In this essay I will evaluate the coherence of the normative version of Hedonism, defined as the theory that says pleasure should be pursued and pain should be avoided and that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of net happiness. Prudential hedonism talks about pleasure being good for the one experiencing it. I will examine if this type of hedonism can be effectively defended by looking at some key objections and responses to those.
Kant offers that his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals “is nothing more than the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality” (4:392). He maintains that people must use “practical philosophy”, or careful reasoning, in order to delineate the precise principle of human morality, which Kant later identifies and formulates as the categorical imperative. To understand this supreme principle of morality, Kant asserts the truth in two things: there exists morality, which regulates human behaviors and signifies good actions, and that this morality can be only understood through reason. Assuming that these are both true, it is not entirely clear what the ontological relationship is between human rationality and morality—whether
Spinoza’s Ethics Benedict de Spinoza is one of the famous practitioners in 17th Rationalism and one of the early influential figures of Enlightenment. There are two compatible views, which are Spinoza is a moral anti-realist in the sense that he denies that there exist mind-independent moral properties and he holds that reason “demands that everyone love himself, seek his own advantage, that everyone should strive to preserve his own being as far as he can”. However, Spinoza’s approach to developing his positive moral theory is to reduce normative claims to considerations of self-interest in a manner reminiscent of Hobbes. Possibly, the difference between the Spinozist and the Hobbist approaches to egoism is that Spinoza provides a metaphysical
Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth.
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.
In this theory an action only can be good if it is maxim and if you can universalize it. This have 2 distinct issues the intentions that are worthy of praise or blame and the actions that can be good or bad. (Fundamentals of Ethics, 162) Kant says: “what has intrinsic value? Act only on universalizable maxims.
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 possibilities for a formal theory of willing or the nature of value are based on Kantian universalization whereas the broad emptiness doctrine supports a theory rooted in the nature of value and employs different ways that in the end misunderstand the content of moral
As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty. The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty.
Young people in the 21st Century need to reevaluate their ethics; David McCullough is helping them understand that by explaining that they need to be honest with themselves and their reality. His scathing criticism of them and their culture, philosophies, and ideologies, is justified and insightful; teens in the United States allows special to become a meaningless term, prefers to win instead of achieving, and cares too much about superficial accomplishments instead of internal growth. McCullough makes a point throughout his speech to say that being special is not just given to you; teenagers are not special by default. In the speech, while he is explaining why young people should look forward to more than just being special or different, in