Lord Devlin’s preoccupation is for society and his theory purports to be a practical and workable moral theory for fallible human being when he says that ‘ social reformers are not as patient as philosophers and we have not waited for minority groups to attain moral integrity” and that those who over emphasize individual freedom fail to realize that “the pimps leading the weak astray far outnumber spiritual explores at the head of the strong” whereas Professor H.L.A Hart’s primary concern goes to the freedom and right of self-determination of the individual and a lesser value on tradition and public opinion. It is clear that their approach to morality is different, where Lord Devlin is looking for consensual morality meanwhile Professor H.L.A Hart is concerned with amalgamation of moralities.
James also believe that the operation of the free market should be come along with some social rules. He further comments that the full unrestricted right to property, that is, to do whatever we can provided that there is no violation of other people’s rights, will finally lead to some reduction of liberty, mainly for the people who does not have property and have to rely on the assistance of others. Morever, Nozick’s comparison of income tax to forced labour has been attached by a number of critics who question the legitimacy of treating the two as remotely equivalent. Nozick’s reliance on Locke’s theory of individual property may be wrong. Locke argues that we acquire ownership over a thing by mixing our labour with in, but I am wonder whether or not it can apply to natural resources.
Proponents of this theory do not rely on a set of moral principles to determine how they should think or act. They also argue that; subjective individuals do not have the right to criticize or object to their actions; however, some find it possible to disagree (“Morality and Moral Theories”). The second theory, Ethical Egoism states that “right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest; also, that it is immoral to act contrary to your own self-interest” (“Morality and Moral Theories”). Proponents of this theory supports actions that maximizes self-interest. They claim that everyone is selfish because of human nature, which is a week point for this theory; given that morality encourages people to consider the interest and wellbeing of others.
His gist is that privacy should be respected which makes him moderate moralism, law should only intervene when society won’t tolerate certain behaviour, law should be a minimum standard not a maximum standard and act as general guideline. Is the act of polyandry tolerable by the society? In some society it is tolerable but in some they will not. However, to abolish the act of polyandry will also intervene with the privacy on the individuals. Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society.
Martin Luther King Jr himself believed "Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere," backing the notion of importance of a fair trial and a just outcome. The Rule of law is another relevant notion that each individual is bound by the law and its institutions. Whilst there may be times that some individuals are tempted to step outside of the law this can have great implications on society and the
Morality “derives from the Latin moralis meaning customs or manners” (Thureau 1). Many people in today 's society often connect the idea of “people being ethical or moral to mean good or right and unethical and immoral to mean wrong or bad” (Thoreau 1). In regards to morality, people “do not conceive it in such an abstract and universal form” (Kant 21). Morals can be specified and altered in different cultures and through experiences. Morality can be developed throughout a person 's lifetime, as there are no set universal morals in place.
This article talks about physician-assisted deaths from a Kantian theory standpoint, in the article it states that “the decision to ends one’s life is itself not autonomous” (Dinh, 478). Autonomy follows the idea of making own decisions for you, not others without inappropriate influence; Kant believes that this procedure violates autonomy and therefore should not be done. Although the article is slated from Kant’s viewpoint, it is also important to remember the other viewpoint. This topic is morally important in our society because such procedures occur today in our society. In many states and countries, physician-assisted deaths are becoming illegal, but are there benefits to this procedure that outweigh the consequences?
There are a few different ethical ways of living life, although they do not allow for the freedom of the individual to learn through their own experiences, to experience life as they choose. This is supported by a multitude of academia texts including the works of Nicomachean Ethics written by Aristotle, and Aristotle’s Function Argument Written By Christine M. Korsgaard. Firstly, to understand Aristotle’s concept of human flourishing and moral virtue and how it is a viable alternative to other ethical theories, even though it is not a prescriptive for ethical decision making. One needs to understand the concept of Aristoltle’s Human Flourishing. To begin with, human flourishing is a terminology used to describe the overall summarization of an individuals whole, life and that people endeavour to be whatever they attempt in life, and to bring themselves the greatest good that they can do within their lives.
Nietzsche wrote about some moralists and posits that they just accept their cultures’ morality and serve as its shield bearers rather than as rigorous critics. Nietzsche here specifies that his task is not simply to expose the psychological and historical contingencies that make for different moralities, but to question moralities for their objective functional value. According to Nietzsche, that a particular morality comes from an erroneous, mythical tradition does not by itself tell us that, that morality is worthless just because it has traditionally been falsely conceived. Similarly, the psychological ways that we form moral concepts does not invalidate their claims to objective value. Neither does showing the historical and cultural processes
This basic simplicity can lead you to take ethical behaviour for system granted which you assumed everyone is committed lives to do the right thing. It is not when you are exposed to unethical behaviour which you are reminded that is your ethical. Unfortunately, not all people share your interpretation of what "the right thing" is, and even if they did, they may not share your commitment to doing it. Another personal value that can be use is personal integrity. It means demonstrated through someone's behaviour by looking at ethics from an external viewpoint rather than an internal viewpoint.