He believes that morality of individuals not make something actually moral. He is with moral nihilism but against moral relativism. There is nothing in principle objectionable that morality is true. Humans make up their own moral facts and believe them whereas there is nothing morally correct. A third moral nihilist argues that there is nothing in principle objectionable about neither moral nihilism or moral relativism.
I agree with Blum’s proposal that in some sense moral excellence is not within our control, or within our will. It is the dimension of morality that is not up to us; some refer to it as moral luck. Part of the purpose of her paper was to provide the readers an appropriate understanding of the supreme value of moral excellence and why it is worthy of our highest admiration. I don’t believe she claims that we cannot reasonably aim to be like heroes or saints, but if one does aim to become a moral exemplar, one may not always succeed. In the chapter Emulating Moral Exemplars she states that while one might naturally be inclined to wish to become a moral exemplar, it is important to accept that for most persons this could not be accomplished.
In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.
It may be a difficult personal choice, but that does not imply there is a moral paradox. The other option is that the two choices are, on-balance, the same level of good or bad. This can also make for a difficult choice, but the moral system dictates that there is no immoral answer. A system of morality which is based solely on balanced judgements is the easiest way to debunk moral paradoxes, but it lacks a consistent set of personal values. It is a framework for individual morality.
Kant would also say it is not a morally dubious act; it 's simply not a moral act of any kind. A dutiful act is that which is done primarily with regard to the moral code. Kant contrasts acts of duty and acts of inclination primarily as follows - dutiful acts are the only genuine examples of morally good behavior. Acts of inclination, on the other hand, are usually amoral (neither good nor bad) unless performing an inclined act is done at the expense of a morally good dutiful one, in which case it would be immoral. Now, Bentham’s objection to the scenario mentioned above would be since the action was successful in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, it is morally good.
Therefore, it is believed that only actions derived from duty have moral values, and those descended from inclination should not be considered worth morally in any case. This theory differs considerably from Aristotle’s beliefs in Nichomachean Ethics when he argues that taking the right action by inclination is a proof of a moral character. Moreover, duty is necessary to create universal rules. One of these rules states that we should act upon pure intentions because moral rules cannot be excused, hence lying is always wrong. Unfortunately, there is an issue with pure reasoning- every experience is different.
Quinn states that morality is based on three concepts: rightness, wrongness, and obligation (515). Actions that are morally right are morally permissible or allowed and fine to do. Actions that are morally wrong then are only wrong since they are not morally right; these actions could be considered ones that morality forbids or prohibits (515). Each action is either be right or wrong, no action
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to