A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
Humans give more thought to their everyday activities. It allows humans to make certain decisions based on their experiences and trying to know the outcome by committing a certain action. The third theory shows that goodwill and good intention is important to have, but it doesn’t matter of the outcome. The hypothetical imperative creates an idea of how to treat people, while categorical imperatives try to establish something that majority of the world population would follow. Kant knows that reason drives to people to commit certain actions and how order is established in
When thinking about morality, it can be defined as being able to make the distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Sextus ' argument can be associated with this because as a human being we know that we can 't be prejudice, or that we at least shouldn 't be. If we are judging other people 's actions, and are constantly concerned with what they 're doing, how can we ever really focus on our self? This is a point that can be connected back to Sextus ' thoughts and reasoning behind us achieving serenity from suspending judgement. For someone to be acting prejudice towards others, this implies that they must not be content with themselves, and that they are trying to find reassurance in themselves through judging others.
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.
It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice. Many do not understand that natural law and civil law are both branches of moral law, and when either are used, moral law is being referenced. The laws set out for the public have a moral aspect to them, whether moral law is referenced or not. When a crime is committed against a person or the public, that criminal is penalized and will either be fined or jailed, some even for a lifetime, depending on the severity of the crime. Penalties against crime are established for the safety of the public.
Now, what if we take that definition even further. I say civility is a commitment to the well-being of the greater good, possibly through kindness, service, or one exhibiting traits a society would typically consider civil. Put plainly, civility and integrity are both fundamental to each other and the function of a society, but would not this difference in definition apply to anything? What makes integrity and civility unlike others is that there is an obvious concern when someone believes that there is only one specific way to have
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 outstanding 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 be considered morally right as 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 others but also to protect them from being harm or getting injured in a certain situation (Rational Wiki,
To begin with, Aristotle believed that the end goal for every individual is happiness or eudemonia. In this way of thinking, moral decisions are dictated by how one lives their life. Virtue considered to some, is a trait that is admired and desired because it is a constituent of human excellence. In society, individuals who have this trait flourish intrinsically and provides a society that is worth living in. Virtue ethics solely emphasizes admirable characteristic traits rather than the actions performed by that individual.
What is basic to morality is the inclination for benevolence—an integral part of moral evaluations. Hutcheson set out to prove the existence of natural feelings, like benevolence, in order to show that not every action was performed out of self-interest. One of Hutcheson’s concerns were that one’s natural benevolence could get caught up with one’s selfish nature, although he hoped people could realize that natural benevolence will allow one to see the higher character and thus one could understand and encourage what is best for everyone. Hutcheson’s moral sense theory helped to conceptually evade the problems that stem from a stringent doctrine of egoism. He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others.
Morality is about standards where we can base what is the correct behavior. Morality also carries the concept of conscience. Morality describes the principles that govern our behavior. These principles guide us to be fair and be in harmony with everyone. As humans, we should not be selfish and do everything to make things in our favor.