Ethical language is subjective. Discuss. ( 35 marks) This statement is asking whether the meaning of terms like good/ bad right wrong exist independent of us or whether they are simply expressions of an individuals’ mood, experience or perception. Having studied a number of meta ethical approaches: I disagree that ethical language is subjective and side with intuitionism, that ethical knowledge is objective, yet indefinable like the colour yellow. G.E Moore begins by rejecting ethical naturalism, the belief that ethical knowledge is based on empirical evidence.
Is Mackie’s argument from relativity compelling? Mackie’s ‘Ethics: Inventing right and wrong’ critically assesses the idea that there are, or even can be, objective moral truths, and exposits Mackie’s ‘moral relativist’ stance. I intend also in this essay to criticise the idea of moral objectivity, and to deal with the objections that could be potentially raised to a relativist stance. The most obvious task, it would seem, to begin with when assessing the idea of moral objectivity, is to come to an understanding about what is literally meant by ‘an objective moral truth’. The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
This theory allows an individual to make a decision that may increase suffering, as long as the consequences are justified (Rawls, 1999). It praises the law over personal morals of the individual. On the contrary, deontological ethics has a classification of a person’s devotion to moral duty. According to Rawls (1999), a deontologist does what they say they will do and mean what they
At first glance, the concept of Cultural Relativism provides an insightful, well-defined perspective on culture and society; however, upon further inspection we can dissect the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism to reveal its setbacks. As James Rachels refers to them, the 1st and 4th claims made by traditional Cultural Relativists, that different societies have different moral codes and that the moral code of our own society is one of many, go hand in hand and follow logically from each other. These claims depend on the contextual definition of “moral code,” and for this argument we will consider these claims to be reasonable and thus we can interpret them as true. When it comes to the 2nd and 3rd claims made by Cultural Relativists, that the moral code of a society determines what is right and what is wrong and that there is no objective standard that can be used to judge each society’s code, we begin to see the traditional definition of Cultural Relativism pull apart at the seams.
Essay #1: In Support of Moderate Ethical Objectivism Pojman and Fieser put forth a theory of moderate objectivism that asserts that there are objective moral truths. They claim that a moral claim is objectively true when it describes an objective moral principle. An objective moral principle is a rule, which if generally followed, would optimally perform the function of serving human needs and interests by reducing harmful social conflict and promoting beneficial social cooperation. (Luco, Week 6 Notes, p3). This essay aims to prove ethical objectivism by using the form of moderate objectivism.
It might be necessary to consider the word "good" from different viewpoints, such as good in a hedonistic sense, good in an artistic sense, good in an economic sense, and so on. The reason for this disparity is a matter of values. The words "good" and "evil" can be used in many different value systems in English, which makes their meanings very broad. In our study of good and evil the following points should be borne in mind: (a) Our study will be from the perspective of the law of kamma, thus we will be using the specialized terms kusala and akusala or skillful and unskillful, which have very precise meanings. (b) Kusala and akusala, in terms of Buddhist ethics, are qualities of the law of kamma, thus our study of them is keyed to this context, not as a set of social values
Instead, the subject herself, through her own reason and the feelings and motives arising a priori from her rational capacities -- the feelings of respect, conscience, moral feeling and love of other human beings, must constrain herself to follow them (MS 6:399-404). Among ethical duties, the fundamental division is between duties to oneself and duties to others. Within each of these two main divisions of ethical duty, there is a further division between duties that are strictly owed, requiring specific actions or omissions, and whose violation incurs moral blame, and duties that are wide or meritorious, the specific actions not strictly owed, but deserving of moral credit or merit. Kant treats these latter as ‘duties’ (eschewing any category such as ‘supererogation’) because the actions in question are conceived as fit objects of self-constraint – things we can make ourselves do through the exercise of reason and the moral feelings arising from the application of practical reason to our faculty of desire. Regarding duties to oneself, this division is between ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ duty; regarding duties to others, the strict or narrow duties are called ‘duties of respect’ while the wide or meritorious ones are called ‘duties of love.’ We may represent the major divisions of Kant’s
This ambiguous and vague claim above is stating that an ethical responsibility will be placed on you if knowledge is being possessed by you. This claim is simply making an assumption that ethical responsibilities will be placed by having knowledge. This presumption made is pointing out that the possession of knowledge is tied with understanding moral standards and values, it is also pointing out that by having knowledge will gain people an understanding towards consequences caused by actions thus carrying responsibilities towards conducting or observing or stopping others conducting different actions at the first place. In other words, this claim can be understood as a duty of following the morally correct principles and standards will be placed on anyone who has ideas and understandings which can lead them into achieving their personal goals. (scu) (Small Business) (stevedenning) In my opinion, the possession of knowledge and knowledge itself does not carry an ethical responsibility at all times but it does carry ethical responsibilities under certain circumstances.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.