Moral Subjectivism: Moral Subjectivism: ethical philosophical theory comes In several shapes, its most individualistic expression is ethical subjectivism, ethical subjectivism says that the standards for what is thought - concerning virtuously right or wrong is the people perceptions, opinions, experiences, inclinations, and their needs. Ethical subjectivism denies the existence of absolute, unchanging, universal moral standards. Instead, it views ethical values as being private, individual, and subjective in nature. Statements typical to the ethical intellect position embody these ,morality, is like the among of the eye of beholder and its most descriptive statement is that, no matter somebody thinks is correct is correct. Moral subjectivism assumes that no one can be wrong regarding his or her moral views.
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
Utilitarianism come under teleological philosophy which connects to morality based on consequences and not on motives or intensions. Under utilitarianism, it’s unethical to engross into a deed which leads to personal gain. Deontological philosophies stress the methods or intentions involved in a particular behavior. Standards to defend personal ethics are often developed under deontological philosophies. Right principle under deontology specifies minimum level of fulfillments and standards independent of
In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism. Deontology only focuses on an action that is right or wrong without regarding the consequences On the other hand, consequentialism consists on having the most positive outcome on every situation. (“Deontological Ethics”). The patient and doctor relationship should be based around trust and honesty.
Virtue ethics are ethical theories which focus on moral character rather than right action. The main focus of Aristotle’s ethics is on the person’s character, you must try to become a person with good character regardless of thinking about any end, outcome, happiness, consequence, action, reward or punishment. If you will be able to have a good and virtuous character right actions will take place automatically. The actions of a person with good character are right actions and the actions of a person with a bad character are wrong actions. Virtue ethics do not require you to focus on doing your duty or on actions that would bring about good consequences.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of
Rossian ethics is a moral belief system falling under the deontology family that allows for certain actions to be deemed right if they abide by the seven prima facie moral principles. These principles are fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and self-improvement. Ross also finds justice, pleasure, knowledge, and virtue to be intrinsically good. In other words, these are good in and of themselves and are not reliant on the intentions of the person doing the action. While Ross claims that these are all important factors, it is evident that he finds virtue to be the best and pleasure to be the least.
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
Being optimistic does not mean what one gets, one already deserves. It is quite the opposite. It seeks for the betterment and goodness of things and not only that it transcends the façade and mundaneness of a person and things in the realms of the physical world. The psychological standard of a person is based on the level of the cogito or the thinking thing of a person. One must think logically and correctly in order to gain the standard of a positive perspective.
Therefore, the actions and norms must be judged according to the principle of utility or of maximum happiness. Like other theories it constitutes a teleoenological ethics, because it values the actions as means to reach an end and according to the consequences that are detached from them: an action is good when its consequences are useful (they approach us to the happiness) and it is bad when Its consequences are not (they keep us away from it). According to John Stuart Mill, the main difference between utilitarianism and classical hedonism (epicureism) is that the first transcends the personal sphere: it does not understand by happiness the personal interest or pleasure, but the maximum benefit for the greater number of people. Pleasure is a common good. Mill distinguishes between inferior and superior pleasures: There are more estimable pleasures than others as they promote or not the moral development of the human being