Perhaps, the main hoe wants to maintain a certain image, and that image involves being in a stable relationship. In this situation, the innocent significant other is only used as a tool to help the main hoe achieve the outward validation he or she wants (since the relationship itself is not the “end” for the main hoe). As for the pro-side hoe argument that used the Theory of Utilitarianism to argue that the existence of side-hoes is moral, there appeared to be some logical flaws. The main argument, that the existence of the side hoe increased the overall happiness of all involved may not have been valid. The conclusion that, “overall happiness was maximized” did not necessarily follow from the premises that the innocent significant other was kept in the dark, and that the main hoe and his side hoe were happy together.
The theories that seek to explain what exactly happiness is, examine the different perspective of an individual’s being and look into how these perceptions relate to one another. The emotional state view, for instance, has some similarities with the hedonist theory in that it takes on arbitrary expansion. On the other hand, the importance of being happy is utterly subjective to an individual but not tied to how their life is going. It is, therefore, safe to assume that while happiness is an important concept, the importance if being happy can be looked at from different
Finally I will make clear if the logical defect of CDA proves if the theory is false or not. The General idea of Moral Relativism is that the beliefs and/or activities of an individual, society, etc. are to be understood. As written in James Rachels book Elements of Moral Philosophy, he states, “Different societies have different moral codes”(p. 18) and that “if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.”(p.19) This shows that in the study of ethics, the study of moral relativism to be more specific, the idea of universal truth does not exist. That is to say what is perceived as “good” or “right” can vary form culture to culture, so there is no way to have one universal truth.
What are the strengths, and what are the weaknesses, of Kant’s deontology? This essay will first look into the definition of deontology and compare it to consequentialism, the common theory is it compared to, to have a better understanding of the contrast between the two theories. Once the base of deontology is defined the essay will start looking into Kant’s theory of deontology and furthermore analyze the strengths and weakness of his theory in comparison to other philosophers. Finally a summary will be held in the conclusion and a personal opinion will be integrated. Firstly what is the definition of deontology.
M. Hare’s argument, it can be seen that there exists some issues with utilitarianism. Or, simply apply utilitarianism to this world, and use utilitarianism code to make every decision is wrong since the code of utilitarianism loss consistency in real world. According to utilitarianism, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or happiness. However, happiness is complex. It is generally acknowledged that people who have their physical and emotional needs satisfied and their human rights guaranteed are happy.
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
69)”. I think this is nicely used for any individual and would be an exception to be relative to a person. However, this also meets their happiness and yet if their goal isn’t for the good and is for selfishness reasons, how are they considered to be virtuous. Just because someone is happy for fulfilling their happiness should not immediately imply that they are in fact
Knowledge and a complete understandning of an action that is evil allows the prevention of harm. You cannot learn evil, because if you learn, it is automatically good for this reason. He then states that understanding is good, and you must understand to have learned. That is true, because if you do not understand the information presented to you, then you do not have knowledge of it, and if you do not have knowledge of it, it has not been learned. Augustine builds off of this by stating that not having an understanding is not good because understanding is good.
Usually beliefs and values are determined by the personal concept of good and evil. Beliefs and values develop accordingly to the individual idea of good. They essentially represent the best actions and things for a person and, very often, for the society. People have often asked themselves, throughout the time, whether what makes an action right or wrong is the motive for which the action is carried out or its consequences and results. Deontological ethics (or deontology) and consequentialism, two opposite branches of philosophy, developed to answer those question.
We regulate our actions in part via the pleasure and pain we experience when exercising them. Virtue involves feeling pleasure in doing the right thing, and pain when doing the opposite. To develop this, we need to have been brought up in a particular way, with the right education from our early days (1104b20). These are external goods which presence (or absence) does not depend on the child. Although it might not be impossible to become virtuous if one has been raised in the wrong environment, it will be extremely difficult, since these experiences are deeply engrained in us.