Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
In order to grasp the philosophy of luck in our existence we must analyze the philosophy of Thomas Nagle’s article, “Moral Luck”. Nagle dispute the Kantianism ideology in which states that we must submit our actions to certain universal moral laws, such as "do not kill". At the same time is important to analyze the concept that they are other factors to take in consideration. This philosophy can be applied in a specific case such as the judicial system or as an opportunity to analyze our behaviors. At the end it can be concluded that the major issue with the analysis of Moral Luck is the ethical aspect.
As previously mentioned, Taylor’s biocentrism argument positions non-human animals as teleological centres of life with an objective good of their own. In accordance with Taylor’s biocentric outlook on nature, non-human animals have legal rights. While he does not claim that these non-human animals have moral rights, he believes that these moral rights should be applied to nonhuman animals (Taylor, 218). If animals can be seen as teleological centers of life, then they ought to have legal rights. Since Taylor states that all living things have equal inherent worth, humans, acting as rational moral agents, are required to respect the moral equality of teleological centers of life and give the same respect to non-human animals that they do to human beings.
Kant explains that we should be able to distinguish which actions are moral, and which are not. 1. Formula of Universal Law is best described from this statement, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction” (Kant, 1785, 1993). A maxim is a rule or principal on which you choose to act. It says that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well.
The specification of morality is abstracted from nature in that individuals face various kinds of laws in making moral choices. While moral law is not empirical or causal other than as a prior normative notion, humans as subjects under the law experience rationality and a phenomenal effect at the same time. In the phenomenal world, the scientific determination is actual but comparatively, it is morally possible when rational beings make a normative
“What does it feel like to be moral?” Kant and the Subjective Vitality of the Moral Law Obeying the categorical imperative, by definition, requires a person to abstract from their conscious inclinations, acting from a higher kind of motivation that is not oriented toward personal gain. What kind of conscious mental state, precisely, is denoted by Kant’s references to this kind of motivation, however, is not immediately obvious. It certainly cannot be a mere desire for the end toward which an action prescribed by the moral law is geared – this would place the action right back into the sphere of inclinations. Nor, I will argue, can it be a desire to obey the categorical imperative as such – at least, not in the conventional sense of “desire”
Deontological Ethical Theories or Duty Theories: According to White (2014), Powers (2005), Schwickert (2005), Gaus (2001b) and Kuniyop (2008), deontological theories are duty-based theories or non-consequentialist theories, which define morality as the fulfilment of moral duties based on obeying moral rules, principles and maxims, regardless of the consequences. Thus, for deontologists the Right has priority over the Good, which means that even if an act will produce the Good, it may not be undertaken, if it is not in agreement with the Right. There are a variety of deontological approaches to morality, but only a few will be discussed: agent-centred theory, patient-centred theory, contractarian theory, Kantian theory, divine command theory and Rossian deontology. Agent-centred Theory: As explained by Alexander and Moore (2012), “according to agent-centred
What is basic to morality is the inclination for benevolence—an integral part of moral evaluations. Hutcheson set out to prove the existence of natural feelings, like benevolence, in order to show that not every action was performed out of self-interest. One of Hutcheson’s concerns were that one’s natural benevolence could get caught up with one’s selfish nature, although he hoped people could realize that natural benevolence will allow one to see the higher character and thus one could understand and encourage what is best for everyone. Hutcheson’s moral sense theory helped to conceptually evade the problems that stem from a stringent doctrine of egoism. He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others.
So what exactly is moral? Well according to the Oxford English Dictionary liberty is “ relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad.” Quite frankly, I do not disagree with this definition. Though moral does depend not on only character or actions, I do not disagree with the meaning. Personally, I think one’s knowledge also reflects their morals. I think showing morals in today’s world would mean that every
The denial of moral authority, asserts Hegel, need not entail extreme subjectivism. The right of the subjective will, this moral self-determination, is itself qualified by the right of the rational. ‘The right to recognise nothing that I do not perceive as rational is the highest right of the will.’ Rationality is a constraining frame which even my reflection in conscience must conform – the issue of conformity will re-appear . There surfaces an epistemological worry: whatever the phenomenological powers of my belief, they cannot guarantee its truth. Put simply, my reflection can get things wrong.