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.
David Hume is an outstanding English philosopher-empiricist which considered comprehensive human understanding from the position of empiricism as his main aim in philosophy. He saw a guide for a practical activity in philosophy. Hume developed the doctrine about experience as a flow of impressions. The problem of existence and spirit in a relationship considered unsolvable. Ideas of doubt and skepticism are inherent his philosophy.
Any kind of argument should be a strict no no. Secondly never bluntly tell him that he is wrong, even if he is, you have to put it across in a suggestive way so that it seems like a suggestion or a point of view. Never use words like 'you are wrong' or 'you don't understand' or 'You don't know' instead you may
Nonconsequentialism came from the work of Immanuel Kant, who is known to be the founder of critical philosophy. Markham (2007) described Kant as ‘the giant in philosophy’. Through his research and work, Immanuel Kant labelled himself a deontologist. According to Markham (2007), a deontologist is ‘a person who recognises that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must be applied consistently to all situations’. Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome.
Which the ethical consideration is aspirational that represent the objective toward to every member. The disciplinary rules, unlike the ethical consideration, are mandatory in their character. They have a minimum level of conduct which no lawyer can fall without a disciplinary action. The NFPA’s model code is an ethics guideline and standards for conduct to which all paralegal should aspire. The NFPA does not support the unauthorized practice of law.
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) Therefore, it can be concluded that moral maxim is the standard of deciding whether an action is moral or not.
Lastly, justice must be about restoring balance (Selzer), not about complete retaliation, as acts of retaliation result in a cycle that occurs for ad infinitum. With regard to the restoration of balance, balance should only do what is necessary to solve a problem, never more,
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences.
Beliefs and knowledge could be true or false but that doesn’t mean a person is incapable or should be considered less in any way. As J.P Moreland states, “indeed, the presence of doubt, the awareness of disagreement among experts, or the acknowledgment of arguments and evidence contrary to one’s view on something does not necessarily mean that one does not have knowledge of the thing in question” (KT, 121). It’s the right of every individual to raise voice and have different opinion and perspective. We can’t judge each other base on what or how they think, everybody deserves the power to place their own view and speak up accordingly. There are different types of knowledge and some of them that human possess are moral knowledge, religious knowledge, scientific knowledge, philosophical knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, and intuition.
Society and respect are hooked together. A society cannot function without respect because of the following reasons. Respect is an offspring of altruism, a biological layer on the basis of society. Secondly, because it is the moral foundation of a human society. Above all, without respect, progress in a society is bound to hinder.
It is telling us that if we do not follow the law it will come back to us. Ethics is not only following the rules, but also obeying the spirit of those rules. Being a Pagan, especially eclectic or solitary, often means not having a clearly marked path regarding right and wrong. Each individual must determine on their what is right and wrong. If I practice what the rede says and I do not harm any one or anything and make sure it is only for good than it should be okay to do.
"You will never influence the world by being just like it." Ayn Rand and Kurt Vonnegut both make sure that the protagonist have a different mindset aside from others that abide by the rules of an unfair lifestyle. They both learn to be independent and go by their beliefs. Although "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut and Anthem by Ayn Rand are both dystopian pieces whose protagonist are incredibly similar. Harrison and Equality both are defiant in their own way and are very much trouble makers that choose to go on their on paths.
A categorical imperative, then, would express a reason for acting which was unconditional in the sense of not being contingent upon any present desire of the agent to whose satisfaction the recommended action would contribute as a means--or more directly... (Rachels, 2010, p. 53) In this way we understand that when we "ought" to do something we are expressing the kind of action that we are willing to take to meet the goal morally where we should be. And that is where the skeptic draws the line because he believes that there should be no boundary or moral code that you should have to answer to, or the reasons for answering it. He just believes in his own judgements that will get him through life without morals or binding guidelines. And that to me, is a foolish way to live. If we were to live as moral skeptics, and always criticizing those with morals then are we not also criticizing ourselves for our own
Each one has expressed the importance of Aristotle’s view of leadership and opposing the way man has been conditioned to accept knowledge through science and reasoning. Levine and Boaks state that “the broadly Aristotelian account… demonstrates that leadership can and should be conceived of as a master virtue that, correctly understood, serves human flourishing” (2013). Keeping in mind that Aristotle’s Responsibility and the Primary Virtues of Character (Sachs, 2002) and Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (1944), in order to be a leader one must be ethically just, or what you will come to find as moral development. This is the concern of goodness and goodwill for your companions and leading because it is a beautiful, chosen virtue (Ethics, III, 1117a, 10). This courageous leadership translates to Lewis’ preservation of Man, not because you are conditioning man, but because you will make sacrifices in order for man to survive.