One of the situations has to be immoral. Objection/Reply Someone who agrees with Hume might object to this argument by saying morality is not based solely on what is rational because people have feelings. He or she may say that people have feelings and are subjective, not objective (Hume). This means that we can’t base our moral code off of what an individual can will universally because that isn’t concrete if everyone has different opinions on what they can and can’t will. Things are also situational, so, even though you can’t will everyone to lie, you could possibly will everyone to lie for a good cause (Hume).
How do I Make Moral choices, in a World of Moral Ambiguity? A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193). If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object.
The first defense is that some consequences in the long term is bad. Like lying to people in the long run would ruin your reputations. But this theory cannot apply to all situations, so the first defense is weak. The second defense is that they made a new type of Utilitarianism called Rule-Utilitarianism. This idea does not judge people by the principles of utility but follows set of rules that promotes the most happiness.
In an article, Warren stated that “We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions” (Warren 1). This is because no one can truly know what a person 's motives are, but they can know their own intentions. It is easier to conclude an idea of a person based on what one can see and know for sure. A person can have good intentions, but the outcome may turn out unfavorable, knowing the final action is simpler to judge because it can be known for sure. Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1).
What is considered good in one circumstance can be evil or bad in another, and vice versa. As a result, this leads to the conclusion that the standards of good and bad, as well as what is moral or not are not definite, which renders the concept of morality baseless. According to Nietzsche, it is likely that the competition for dominance and power is the best basis for explaining morality, noting that these definitions are changed through human interactions. In his second essay, Nietzsche contrasted what he called "master morality" and "slave morality." Master morality was developed by the strong, healthy, and free, who saw their own happiness as good and named it
Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action.
In my essay, I will decide whether an Act or Rule utilitarian would provide better guidance for the above scenario, analysing how and why they would react in the ways they possibly would, as well as mention all the other points I will consider in my judgement of whom would provide better guidance. From my viewpoint I believe a Rule utilitarian would provide better judgement of the situation, as it would be the most moral to follow the rules in this situation in particular, rather that act on an unmoral choice to save yourself. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that is based on the belief that the moral rightness of an action is determined by the consequences it has rather that solely basing it on the notion of duty; motives do not matter
What if individuals accept the worse and when offered something better, they believe they don’t deserve it? George’s character is somewhat insinuating this because of his abilities he deserved to be handicapped, and if he does something out of the way he needs more punishment. I chose George because I believed that he depicted what was wrong with the society and how that we let higher ranking people tell us what we deserve. George is a smart individual, and knows that his government is wrong, yet does nothing. In some cases aren’t all individuals
For ignorance, Aristotle divides acts that are done by “reason of ignorance and those which were acted in ignorance”. Compulsory acts would be involuntary because they are done essentially under the influence of external forces such as “the wind or by men who had him [the individual] in their power”, which the principle of the action is not “contributed to the person who is acting or is feeling the passion”. It is valuable to clarify, that compulsory actions are actions that individuals have no power upon. Actions such as the ones done by fear or by threats, explains Aristotle, have a different nature even though it seems to be in itself compulsory. An example of this is when someone threatens a relative of a certain individual to get him to do a specific action.
Consequentialism is based on two principles: ¥ Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act ¥ The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act It gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma: ¥ A person should choose the action that maximizes good consequences And it gives this general guidance on how to live: People should live so as to maximize good consequences ¥ for example, according to rule consequentialism we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences. Results-based ethics produces this important conclusion for ethical thinking: ¥ No type of act is inherently wrong - not even murder - it depends on the result
(p 363) In response, he found the answer to be no, as he saw these advances as corrupting man’s goodness and human morals. He has doubts about the powers of science to be a benefit to one 's morals. Also, the diffusion of knowledge will not erase superstition. It is our conscience playing the same role that our instinct plays for our morals. Rousseau sees our personal conscience alone is able to