Kant makes the point that an action done out of duty is intrinsically good, by stating, “The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth, not in the objective… but solely on the principle of violation…” (Kant 321). In other words, this means that an action has moral worth when it doesn’t matter what consequences it has but rather the thought of not doing the dutiful thing is compelling enough to make someone act morally. To act out of duty alone is to follow the categorical imperative. Kant arrived to the principle of of the categorical imperative through analyzing the good will. The good will proves the idea that an action should be done for its own sake and not for its results.
Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114). By completely ignoring the consequences of your actions, using other as a mere means by deceiving them of something, and coercing somebody, is that being morally good? Therefore, O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at
While self-transcendent values are characterized by praising welfare and acceptance, and as such are positively correlated with propensity to help, self-enhancement ones are correlated to seeking power and achievement, and therefore are negatively correlated to helping behavior (Schwartz, 2010; Paciello et al., 2013a; Boer & Fischer, 2013). However, through correlational analysis of questionnaires measuring values, propensity to help and prosocial moral reasoning, Paciello et al. (2013a) found that self-transcendent values are prone to being influenced by the situation. For example, Paciello et al., (2013a) found that self-transcendent values are more likely to temper self-interest and elicit
It represents a way to decide if an action is morally correct by looking at the consequences that it produces, if they are favourable they are morally correct according to Fieser (2016). According to the same author Consequentialism can simply be divided in 3 categories. Ethical egoism classifying an action to be morally right if the overall consequence that action will result to be more beneficial for the person performing it. Ethical altruism when if the benefits of the actions are more beneficial to everyone else except the person performing the action and in the end Utilitarianism which classifies an action to be morally correct if the consequences of that action are beneficial to everyone. The concept, as I previously stated is fairly simple to understand and according to Santa Clara University(2014) it is calculated by subtracting the negative outcome of a circumstance from the overall positive outcome and if positive will be grater then happiness is achieved thus the act is considered morally correct.
However, even if the action can be said to be a moral good, that is not enough for a description. More evidence is required to identify the point of a specific thing. The act of justice must be connected to the behavior of human beings. Just because someone likes something, that does not qualify that specific thing or action to be morally good. If something is to be termed as good, then it has to cause a positive effect on someone’s life.
Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions. Finally, one must choose the option that permits the greatest balance of good overall, so to choose any other action would be considered immoral. That being said, a utilitarian does not always have to choose the option that benefits the most people, since the goal is to bring about the least amount of misery; besides, the benefit of helping the majority may bring a greater cost of well-being to the minority. Additionally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism, as they both concur that the results of one 's actions signify whether it was morally right or wrong. In doing so, they must consider the effects to as far as they go into the future.
Although the consequences of Hoyvald’ decision produced overall happiness according to a vague quantitative measurement, his decision wasn’t the best one. The quantitative measurement, also known as the “hedonistic calculus”, is a procedure used by Bentham to calculate the pleasures and pains of a decision’s outcomes to support his theory (Bentham, 32). By following this procedure, we are overshadowing the reasons that caused such pleasures and pains to occur. In Hoyvald’s case, he must have chosen the decision that was ethically right rather than the decision that was the best for his own sake, meaning that it caused more pleasure than pain. And by that we approach the definition of what is ethically right and what is not.
Altruism theory can basically be defined as an act that an individual performs, in order to benefit someone else. Altruism can also be known as Ethical Altruism. Furthermore, this specific theory speaks about the outstanding deeds that an individual would undertake to help and benefit someone else, even if it requires the sacrifice of self-interest. The action that the individual would tackle would be considered morally right as the result would benefit the recipient than the person actually conducting the action (Mastin, 2008). Majority of the time these actions that are performed by individuals are not only about doing good for others but also to protect them from being harm or getting injured in a certain situation (Rational Wiki,
He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others. When someone’s moral sense operates and they judge an action as morally wrong, the moral sense is not why they feel the wrongness, it is how they feel it. It is like an applause meter that evaluates the morality that is expressed in the sentiment. Thus the opinion of morality transits from a feeling to an
The moral ambiguity of deeming peoples actions good or bad can be unreasonable, but even more so for their ambitions. First, what is ambition? Ambition is the desire to achieve a goal. What determines the righteousness of a person’s ambition is their actions in attaining what they desire. Sometimes these actions can be forgiven due to the scope of the situation.