Generally, ethics is defined as the rule for carrying out certain behaviors by distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Resnik, 2015). In other words, ethics assists in determining whether a decision is right or wrong when given a choice. As a matter of course, decision-making is first predisposed by personal ethic that is constructed on personal experience and conscience (Fritzsche & Oz, 2007) . It tends to be affected by family and friends (Ferrell & Gresham, 1985). Not only does personal ethics guide human behavior but also social ethics (Shaw, 2002).
I do not think that people need to find a meaning as to why they are on earth. If you are enjoying your life by doing random things that have no meaning, then you should continue doing this. If you love your job no matter how much money or fame you get, then this is a happy life for you. You should never let anyone boss you around for the wrong reason and take advantage of you. You have the power to make your own choices and live your own life.
In my point of view having freewill is the source of rights. Because we only have the use and benefits of rights when we have freewill. Explaining this argument, there is no logic of giving rights to a creature or person which cannot grasp or having need to use those rights and giving rights to that living is pointless. Furthermore I disagree with Locke`s view that rights protect men from the force of others (1). Rights are ethical principles and moral values we have in our lives.
In summary, these ethical theories are more specified concretely as: consequentialism as ultimately desiring maximization of happiness; deontological ethics as requiring rationality as part of the moral principles and; virtue ethics as an exercising of one’s virtues, a character trait that one needs to flourish and live well with. The difference between these three approaches in morality is based more on the way moral dilemmas are approached and attended to, instead of how moral conclusions are
Ethics also called moral philosophy, “is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles”.1 For Socrates “Ethics are the norms by which acceptable and unacceptable behavior are measured”.2 He believed that individuals develop ethics through maturity, wisdom and love. Ethics have developed as people have reflected on the intentions and consequences of their actions. Immanuel Kant however argued that “moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he called the Categorical Imperative”.3 Kant’s theory can be seen as an example of the deontological moral theory. According to this theory, the rightness or wrongness of actions does
The perpetual dilemma in partisan approach is the potentially apposing ethical obligations imposed upon a lawyer; those to the client and those to the general interest of society and the profession. Ethical obligations go beyond individual moral conflictions that a lawyer may feel. Ethics, by definition, is the moral ground that underpins professional interactions. The lawyer’s professional responsibility extends beyond their client to the broader interests of the law, society and justice. It is for this reason that a lawyer who solely adheres to the standard conception cannot always be said to be acting ethical.
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
This criticism has as its main target Korsgaard's argument for humanity. Just like the criticims of Korsgaard's constructivism, Tenenbaum and FitzPatrick believe that morality in Korsgaard's theory is based upon something that the individual agent does. The difference is that they argue that even if the individual agent chooses to reason in the way that Korsgaard wants him to reason, this way of reasoning is flawed. Here I will shortly discuss their argument to show that it is based upon the interpretation of the self as the source of normativity that I am
Rather, it is based on standards at which we guide our behaviors and determine what should be done and what shouldn’t. Kant, one of the greatest philosophers who have discussed ethics, argues that acting in an ethical way requires differentiating between, “right” and “wrong” and then performing the right option. It is all about every individual’s view for a condition and the morality. Morality