The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people
MORAL PERCEPTIONS Moral perception is a term used in ethics to denote the discernment of the morally salient qualities in particular situations. In order to understand this, we must understand what ethics is all about. Ethics, also known as moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. It talks about what the best way for living is. It teaches us what conduct is right and wrong and under what circumstances.
That is, our feelings of nature are properly designed and therefore ought to be heeded. Kant’s belief of ethics might be seen as an over-arching design and order of nature. The third illustration considers the issue of developing one’s talents. Nature endows us with aptitudes that are intended for a given purpose, which Kant implies, are valid in an appropriate system of nature. Like the antecedent moralists, Kant appeals to the teleology of nature.
In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences. Moreover, categorical imperative is a formal principle that provides a framework for deriving moral maxims, such as ‘honor your parents’, ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not lie’. However, there is another class of philosophers called rule deontologists who differ from Kant in denying that moral rules can be deduced from higher principle. These rule deontologists believe that rules must be known directly by intuition.
I like using this as a method to judge actions and interpreting them as good or bad. I also see where the one writer disagreed with this based on Aristotle’s excluding murders, adulterers as always extreme so they did not count in his theory. Since it was a difference in degrees, there is no way to argue in favor of the mean. I however, can see in society that we have adopted the mean theory in a way. How we judge a cold blood, pre-planned murder and an out of passion in the moment murder is by degrees.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics dismisses such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument. After I present an individual
Ethics is that part of philosophy that deals with the good and bad or the right and the wrong in human conduct. Many questions come to our mind about morality, why should I be moral? What is morality? Should I be moral? Or should morality be relative or absolute?
In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires