What Would A Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Hursthouse presents an outline of these ethical approaches. First, deontology premise one the action is right if it follows the guideline of a “moral rule or principle”, and premise two a correct moral is either “required by rationality” or the “rational acceptance from behind the veil of ignorance and so on…”. Then she presents act-utilitarianism, premise one the action is correct if it comes out with the best outcome, and premise two if the best outcomes presents that “happiness is maximized”. Finally, the author presents virtue theory. Virtue theory, the action is correct “if it is what a virtuous agent what do in the circumstances”. She then explains what a virtuous person is, and discusses how a virtuous

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Every day we are faced with certain situations that challenge us with how to act in an ethical manner. It can be human nature to feel unsure or conflicted with the correct moral choice. Some can say that one should know how to handle such dilemmas and others may say that there should be a reference of some sort to help guide through such conflicts. Sometimes we know the answers and sometimes we are unsure of how to handle certain situations. Most times we go through life wondering what we should do. As I become further educated on the different theories of ethics, I believe there are answers that are available in guiding one through an ethical dilemma and or judgment. I will discuss Vincent Ruggiero’s three basic criteria, Robert Kegan’s order of consciousness, the three schools of ethics and the correlation between all three.

Such theories have attempted to explain what is right and what is wrong. Rachel states that each of these theories, presents a different idea of what it really means to live a moral life (p.1). Although these theories have opposing views, “the minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept” (p. 1). In the last chapter of his book, Rachel starts off by describing the beginning of the world as we know it. He describes it as it evolved, and also incorporates the theories as he continues. Rachels explains how human beings evolved as well as did our sense of rationality (p. 176). Consequently, we were able to reason and look into what choices we had in a situation and what was in our best interest (p. 176). From this thought, Rachel moves on to describe other ideas, such as how to treat people and that they should all be treated alike, with everyone’s interests in mind. He also describes virtues, justice, utilitarianism, and how non-human animals are sentient and worthy of moral consideration (p.183). According to Rachels, a satisfactory moral theory would be multiple-strategies utilitarianism. In which Rachel believes, “we should maximize

Once again, Rachels' premise is here based on the idea that conflicting interests can be resolved. Key to his argument is a concept of reason, since Rachels stresses continuously throughout the essay that human beings are rational creatures. Discovering 1) the best plan, and 2) the maximization of interests, is possible through reason. In this essay, using Rachels' argument as a point of contrast, I would like to develop an interpretation where such a satisfactory moral theory is not plausible on two main grounds. Firstly, Rachels' account overlooks the clear empirical evidence of conflicting human world views. In so far as such conflicting world views exist, it is therefore incorrect to speak of a "best plan", since this plan will always be opposed. Furthermore, this itself implies a concept of conflict. The same logic applies for the concepts of interests. Secondly, I would like to challenge Rachels' claim that reason will help us find the best plan and determine the interests for human

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

The evolution of the universe and our behaviour throughout history. I will set out to consider Laura Moriarty: Plateau (2011) and Mary Mattingly: Pull detail, (2013) in relation to “Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene,” Joanna Zylinska, (2014). I will consider our human responsibility for the world and show the changes and composition of life through human relations and ethic towards the universe. And can we re-evaluate our minimal ethics, while there’s still time for changes.

In chapter one of James Rachels’s What is Morality, he argues that at the very minimum, morality is using reason to guide one 's decisions, while keeping in mind the interests of those who will be affected by one’s choice, without giving more weight to one individual over another. He supports this thesis by describing a couple of morally ambiguous situations regarding humanity and life.

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

Moral theories can help justify the decisions that are made. Each theory has separate viewpoints in which other theories borrow elements from. Moral theories attempt to explain what it is that makes some actions right and others wrong. These are then used as a guide to making choices. They operate at a more general level than moral or legal principles and rules. The four main groups that one should be aware of are: Utilitarian, Kantian, Aristotelian and Feminist.

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.