In other words, one does not act out of duty because we have a tendency to do so, but rather because we know it is the rational choice. Kant specifically states that an action cannot be worthy if it is just “as a means to some end.” Which means that you are only doing an action because it is externally beneficial instead of internally good. An action is moral if it is done out
He claims how morality is better understood on a relative level. Instead of one culture being “correct” and the rest misinterpreting the moral principal, it is better to express that each culture receives their morals from different ways of life. “Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people’s adherence to and participation in different ways of life” (pg. 176). One culture should not be considered more moral than another, as well not to considered one correct or right over another one.
Could the conclusion not be that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong behavior in cases where the behavior is subjectivity is key? Or we could change premise 2 and claim that some viewpoints are inherently better than others. These revisions do not detract from relativism, rather they help us understand the reasons for relative thinking (which will never be abandoned). The issue that many have with moral relativism is that it is both advantageous and problematic. In one sense, it promotes toleration and accommodation to viewpoints that differ from our own, which in turn helps combat malicious feelings such as ethnocentrism and racism.
Even if humans have their own beliefs whether it may be right for them and not for others, where did they get the idea of right and wrong from in their perspective? Even if all people doesn't agree on common moral law, there still an unspoken law existing not just in our own minds. Even if all humans have their own principle and values that what they see as good or bad, there still the concept and idea of right from wrong. Humans cannot judge any acts as an evil or good because it was simply from others perspective. Everything is not based from one perspective whether it is good or bad for them.
much can be gained from ethical theory utilitarianism, more specifically rule utilitarianism. In this essay, I will explain what rule utilitarianism is and two of its types. I will discuss situations where rule utilitarianism can be looked at as somewhat morally wrong , to show an objection on the theory. I will give an objection to how the general guiding rules are made and also to give an analytical view on the principle of utility. Utilitarianism is a popular type of consequentialism, rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism.
Those who assume extremal empirical grounds as the principle of morality, base it on examples of custom and education, through community with one another, men engender that which seems similar to a moral law (Kant’s letters on ethics.29:622). Kant holds, then, that the subjective, empirical and internal serve as the foundations of moral feeling and also the basis for the principle of morality. However, after a short while, he realizes this psychological explanation of morality remains deficient. Consequently, he alters his views in order to essentially rule out obscurity and specifically the notion of the privacy of the indemonstrable concept of the good. Therefore, one year after the Prize Essay, Kant deals with the problems associated with subjectivism and his psychological approach to morality in his work entitled ‘bemerkungen zu den beobachtungen’ (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and
Meaning, that some values that culture A has, may be deemed as unethical in culture B. However, we cannot state that one action is right, and another is wrong, because, as mentioned before, they differ from culture to culture, or individual to individual. The terms "right" and "wrong" may have meaning to one culture but may not be used the same in another one, thus a universal meaning cannot be established in writing. Now these may tie into the next ethical theory that I personally agree with, Egoism and
Throughout this essay I will be discussing how we should handle moral disagreements. Specifically I will focus on the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, it benefits but also its disadvantages which shows it is a theory which should not be used to handle moral disagreements. Utilitarianism is a type of relativist consequentialist ethic. Consequentialist ethical systems focus on the outcome of an action, rather than the agent or the action itself. Utilitarianism is a relativistic ethic because each time the outcomes of each ethical questions will be different.
Averagely, people normally try to determine or analyze the consequences of anything they try or wish to do in order to better measure their moral responsibilities. According to Fieser ( n.d ), consequentialism states that “an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable”. This simply implies that a correct or acceptable moral behavior is measure primarily by the cost-benefit study of an action’s consequences. The professed rules require by consequentialist are that we at the beginning should classified both the advantages and disadvantages consequences of an action. If the advantage consequences are greater, then the action can be classified
Answer 2: 1) Consequentialism, it says that an action can be judged as ethical or unethical based on the consequences it creates, practices which bring in a person cannot predict consequences beforehand, an art which could be gained with experience. Consequentialism has its types to evaluate morality, here it is by the human practices based on their act, the rules, the motives behind a specific practice and the character traits of a person who decides. Classic Utilitarianism is regarded as a generally accepted version of consequentialism. An action is considered moral based on the Utility, which is personal satisfaction, commonly stated as “happiness” minus the pain. Thus, an action is morally good or bad is based upon the rise and fall