When faced with an ethical dilemma, many people, look to their faith in God for guidance. It is quite understandable that the defined moral characteristics that religion provides helps individuals see through the uncertainty of life. The great philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, was a fervent believer of the almighty, and even argued that God predestined everything that happens to you. However, he encouraged his readers to not blindly worship the text. Instead, he advocated for the use of philosophical thinking to decipher God’s meaning.
Some actions, like journeys, have value regardless of the outcomes they produce. Williams brings this point about to show how the utilitarian’s focus on consequences might not be the best way to assign value to actions, since it has no way of accounting for the intrinsic values actions may have. Here I have to agree with Williams. The manner in which consequentialist judge actions does not seem to allow any room for considering a person’s intent behind choosing to commit that act. Williams seems to be more open to such considerations than Smart ever was in his
Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad.
This means not how we see things or are prospective but how things really are. Reality is unbiased platform that isn’t defined to a specific person. It does not depend on any one-person experience but what is there.
The circumstance that Socrates should actually try to disprove should not presuppose that all members are equal. If there are established hierarchies, chains of command and systems of enforcement, injustice can arise and harmony can remain. In fact, since it would
Kant clarifies that consequences are not important, the primary thing in action is intentional. In this issue, it is not possible that all people help the hungry because of that they have these intentions. There is always one who says that nobody can blame me because of that I did not make them hungry. Moreover, Kant classifies the duty according to its certainty. He defines the perfect duty as a perfect duty such as telling the truth which is not flexible and all people must obey.
Normal should not be a term that determines whether a person is treated a certain way or allowed to do certain deeds. Being normal does not mean you are better than others because nowadays everyone wants to be the opposite of normal. They want to stand out and be the one who has a unique quality. People should not fall under a range; there is nothing wrong with being different and if one wants to use the term abnormal to describe that then it should be taken as a compliment not an insult. The next time you feel abnormal or like you do not fit in, remember to be yourself instead of being forced into a box like everyone
Anyhow, the benefits of the left would definitely outweigh the disadvantages of the right hand. In fact, an artificially superintelligent being [refer: Superintelligence] would be more moral and ethical than even humans as it would have no concept of racism, sexism, religion, etc, nor would it have any cognitive biases or fallacies. It would be able to take the more morally apt decisions for humans and it self than humans would be able to, themselves.
They supposed that anyone seeking virtues should seek them because they are practical and have ‘real-world’ benefits, “…vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful, the nature of man alone considered; that it was, therefore, everyone’s interest to be virtuous who wished to be happy…” ( Franklin 1973/2016, p. 65). Along those lines Aristotle also stated, “But for actions in accord with the virtues to be done temperately or justly it does not suffice that they themselves have the right qualities. Rather, the agent must also be in the right state when he does them” (Aristotle, 2005, p. 578). They believed the only way to become virtuous was by doing virtuous actions.
As they always say, two wrongs do not make a right. Nevertheless, I like the example that you give at the end.
Imagine a world where African Americans are completely discriminated and have no rights just because of their skin color. They would be seen as nothing to the people 's eyes, nothing but useless pieces of meat. This would probably happen if people didn’t stand up for what they believe in. But we do not live in a world where African Americans are completely discriminated. We live in a world where people can stand up for what they believe and make a change for the better.