By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things. Being good, in others words moral, means what? Kant is that the only thing without qualification that is good is the act of having a good will. The good will is the will to do the right thing and everything else (ie. money, courage etc) can be used for good or evil.
Normally, what is often referred to moral subjectivism is the doctrine that, for example, “the action is right” which means that I approve the action. Referring the action as right means that the moral judgment of the speaker is equivalent to their own attitudes or feelings. According to Mackie (648),
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.
In his book, Mill states that happiness is desirable (Proof: because we desire it) and nothing other than happiness is desirable, as anything else desired is only a means to or part of happiness. Utilitarianism is normally referred to as the law of greatest good for the greatest number of people, which means that an action is only permissible if there was no other action available that could have lead to greater happiness. It also means that an action with bad consequences could be permissible if all the other options were to lead to worse results. Utilitarianism is different than other ethical theories in a way that right and wrong depend on the consequences of actions rather than the actions’ conformity to moral rules. Utilitarianism has some hallmark characteristics: 1.
With the help of this analogy, we can say that we act morally if we stand on something that what we think is morally right regardless of the situation. On the other hand, we act ethically if we do something that is right, and that idea of righteousness is based on other’s perspective. This is the reason why it is prone to
He presumes true that everything in life as an aim, so as we humans have our special aims to help us attain our maximum happiness. life He sat and analyzed the concept of human happiness on the bottom of his debate and justifies the concept of justice as the basis of an individual’s life. Following him, “justice is considered to mean equity, but does not invariably mean equality; justice is relative to persons being equal and a just distribution is one in which the relative values of things given correspond to those of the person receiving” (Amytage 2013 pg.81). Observing Aristotle’s view, man’s happiness is the life of the soul. The harmony of justice in an individual and society is equal to the enjoyment of values.
Human beings are the only things that have true value. Their moral worth allows them to work out whether an action is the right thing to do or if it is the wrong thing to do. This essay will aim to show how the Utilitarian’s and Kantian’s view punishment for a crime and explains how the Kantian view provides a better moral theory. The Utilitarian’s view of morality is that it (morality) is dependent on the consequences of actions and the level of happiness that is brought about by a specific action. Happiness can be determined by the amount of pleasure or pain.
All human beings owe it to each other. It is thought to be a good deed to another person, and it shows an act of humility (Foot 93). Foot answers the question of whether justice is good or bad by saying that it is a recognized virtue and a good action which falls under the moral code. Thus, justice is good for the just man. However, even if the action can be said to be a moral good, that is not enough for a description.
The moral interests of man must take precedence over his scientific interests. The basic reality in man is his will this is the true “thing-in-itself.” And it is a microcosmic representation of the Whole Universe. Not only is man’s chief concern the realisation of his ethical obligations, the Whole Universe is a Moral Order working out its tasks on a grand scale. And,