8) Kant states that if Gods doesn’t exist, then the universe is incomplete immoral, due to that virtue will be unrewarded and wickedness will not be punished. 9) Hobbes argues that ethics is a result from when people come to realize what they must do to live as best as they are able to. 10) Rachels continues to state that a supportive society can only exist if we come to adopt certain aspects
Before Kant, moral philosophy was dominated by Crusius’s sense of divine morality which stipulates that the will of a person has to be in accordance with the will of God. Wolff’s notion of moral perfection adds that we should strive to procedurally achieve our sense of moral obligation to the degree that the ends or effects of a particular action are based on our ability to calculate perfection. Kant concludes that Wolff’s postulates are virtually impossible in attempting perfection in 1764 in his Prize Essay ,‘‘now I can with little effort show how I became convinced, after much thought, that the rule ‘do the most perfect action which for you is possible’. ’’ (Prize Essay.2:229) Crusius and Wolff’s arguments essentially appeal to the un-provable
In “The Subjectivity of Values,” J.L Mackie argues for Error Theory. Error Theory is a version of moral skepticism. This version of moral skepticism denies the existence of right and wrong as “intrinsically normative entities on fundamental grounds as unsure about what kinds of things such entities would be, if they existed” (Mackie 1977). His ‘Central Argument’ article affirms two things: Objective values provide reason to motivate anyone aware, and the awareness of some objective reason would provide reason in such a way that everyone would be motivated (to some extent) to act in accordance with the value. In this paper, I present Mackie’s argument for Error Theory.
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.
Therefore, it is believed that only actions derived from duty have moral values, and those descended from inclination should not be considered worth morally in any case. This theory differs considerably from Aristotle’s beliefs in Nichomachean Ethics when he argues that taking the right action by inclination is a proof of a moral character. Moreover, duty is necessary to create universal rules. One of these rules states that we should act upon pure intentions because moral rules cannot be excused, hence lying is always wrong. Unfortunately, there is an issue with pure reasoning- every experience is different.
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
Aristotle believed that moral virtue is the foundation of ethics. Held’s principle of care ethics is based on the belief that caring for others is the proper way to live your life. While the only similarities I can find among the four are that they all have theories of morality, their theories are vastly different. “ Kant views an action as right
Mackie’s Arguments Against Ethical Objectivism According to the book The Fundamentals of Ethics, it is stated that ethical objectivism “is the view that moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true” (Shafer-Landau, p. 294). It is the belief that each individual or person has their own set of moral principles. J.L Mackie explains two arguments against ethical objectivism, which include the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. In addition he explains and defends his error theory. He states his claim that they are no objective values and that ethical statements are false.
She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end. “We find in our ordinary moral code many requirements and prohibitions inconsistent with the idea that benevolence is the whole of morality.” (48). If benevolence is not the overall end of morality, but instead the end of one virtue within morality, then it cannot be the basis for morality as a
Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of: 1. If humans have common sense morality, then they follow prima