Admittedly, this is similar to virtue ethics in many regards. He has 7 main duties that he believes should be placed above everything else. The fundamental flaw in this theory is how he chose these 7 duties. It seems like the only reason the duties are on the list are because they are intuitively deemed as “good.” Who’s to say that a virtue like self-improvement should be on their while something like empathy isn’t? The other criticism is how to decide which decision to pick when there are two duties that compete.
ARISTOTLE ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE The first thorough analysis of the concept of justice is still the best. In one sense it implies to the whole of virtue. A just and a moral right person is one who always done what is morally right and obeys the law justice in this sense is called universal justice in the eyes of Aristotle. More precisely and particularly justice consist of taking only a proper share of some good. JUSTICE IN NICOMACHEAN ETHICS: Aristotle observed in book V of the nicomachean ethics that the word justice is has a double meaning as: “Justice can mean either lawfulness or fairness, since injustice is lawlessness and unfairness.
Duty as in that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. This theory asserts that an action is considered 'morally good ' because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Expressions such as "virtue is its own reward" and Duty for duty 's sake" are used to attest to the believe that in deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Since utilitarian 's believe that all actions must seek to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this would still apply even if that act harms an innocent person. A simple example would be that if a surgeon could save three lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy person, then this is entirely acceptable as it 's helping the greater number.
Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth. In contrast, doing what is good means more of doing what is kind, friendly, or morally exceptional. Kant states how doing your duty because it is your duty is the only reason that has moral worth, and says that if you do something good for someone, you do it because that is the morally right thing, and not because it is a morally good
One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history. Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. 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.
In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people
From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical. Kant also discussed the importance of perfect and imperfect duties in relation to good morality between humans. He suggested that although we have ‘moral leeway’ in how or when we perform imperfect duties, we must ensure that we always succeed in carrying out perfect duties: ‘they must be done’ as negative duties are ‘more stringent’ than positive duties (Kamm,
For him, if our mind agreed with our voluntary actions to some law then it is considered as good but if our mind disagreed to it then it is considered as bad. Things that are good are those things which we are comfortable to deal with and things that are bad are those things that we could not fathom; pain and sorrows. In 19th century (late modern period) Moral philosophy is still a huge shot for the philosophers. Immanuel Kant demonstrated his thoughts about morality and rationality. For him as a rational being, one would not only ask for the right thing to do yet would also make a list on the things that he/she would want to attain in life or in other words, things that he/she would ought to do.
Now a society’s unifying belief system is beneficial whether that system is true or not is irrelevant. His attitude is surprising considering that he proclaims to value truth above all else in the case of the noble lie at least societies values the halt and security of the state over truth perhaps he realizes that without a stable
The main issue here is how we should view the law morally, whether law in itself is generally a good thing? In some case there are some facts which work against law. So does it imply that law is wrong? There are some arguments related to this theory: The Gratitude Argument: We have to obey the law because we are obligated to be grateful to the government because of the good things it does for us, and obeying the law is the best way of showing our gratitude. The Argument from Fair Play: When a person receives a benefit or reward or some other thing from industry, whose success depends on the obedience to its rules and regulation, and that obedience involves some sacrifice, and he intends to continue receiving awards, the he just obeys the rules of the company no matter how morally correct or incorrect are these