A Proper Moral Guideline For A Rational Being

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

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.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational

Optimific means yield the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks. The principle of consequentialism would be the principle of Utility. There are five principles which are identify what is good, identify what is bad, determine options, value of each open option, and do the optimific one. I believe consequentialism would decide right action because before doing something you can think about the five principles like identify what is good. Also, you should do the things that is most optimific and not the happiest. Kantian Deontology is believing that morality is a matter of duty. Moral duties to do things which is right to do and moral duties not to do things which is wrong to do. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome. Kantian is responsible for most prominent and well-known form of deontological ethics. Kantian moral theory is based on views of the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality. It also mentions the good will which is the right thing for the right reason. The principle of Kantian Deontology would be the principle of

Consequentialism refers to the idea that what is morally good or bad is all based on the consequences of one’s actions. It is derived from the Theory of Right Action which is a part of

In this paper, I will present a similarity and difference between Aristotle’s concept of a virtuous act and Kant’s discussion of dutiful action. In The Nicomachean Ethics, The source of a virtuous action happens when your passions and thoughts are balanced. It is balanced when there is

Morality is central to all rational beings, whereby a moral action is one determined by reason, rather than our personal desires as suggested by Kant (1785) in contrast to Hume. (1738). Furthermore, Kant suggests that an action is moral only on account of its being reasoned, therefore the moral worth of an action is determined by its motives and not by its consequences. Exploring the works of Hume (1738) and Kant(1785) on morality and ethics, we will ask the question whether we should do what is morally right, even when you could profit by doing something wrong, and furthermore, we shall discuss morality as a type of game, yet something you cannot opt out of, as something Foot describes as 'inescapable'. (Foot 1972: 311).

This essay is a comparison of two great thinkers, Aristotle and Confucius with regards to the concept of good ethical character and conduct or virtue. Apparently, Aristotle and Confucius had varied views regarding humanity. However, even with their diverse perspectives, both have had considerable influence in philosophy in general and in their respective countries in particular. To be able to make the comparison of their view on virtue, this essay will analyze these thinkers’ respective classical writings concerning the concept of morality. That said this comparison progresses as follows.

Through a comparative study between the non-consequentialist and consequentialist aspects of Kant and Mill’s ethical theories, one would be able to further acknowledge and evaluate the motives of our actions clearly

In her “Non-Relative Virtues: an Aristotelian Approach”, Martha Nussbaum examines different daily and universal human experiences in which most people must participate. Through this examination Nussbaum defends a version of Moral Objectivism, this one heavily supported by Aristotle, that there is indeed a single objective account of the human good based on our common humanity. However, it is Isaiah Berlin’s version of pluralism in his “Pursuit of the Ideal” that fully encompasses the nature of moral judgments, calling for a base level of absolute moral judgment and then allowing for relativism in other areas of moral judgment.

This paper will show how the actualization of the certain moral principle of responsibility, respect, and concern for others are the centerpiece in the foundations of my ethical framework. I have tried to embrace these principles governing my treatment of the world in a rationally grounded belief system. I contend that sentient and non-sentient beings ought to be considered as having inherent worth and that determines my moral relationship with others in the journey of living

Confucius and Aristotle are some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind. While Confucius was born in China and spearheaded a new way of perceiving morality, Aristotle was born in Macedon/Greece and also immersed his philosophical work to addressing moral thinking.Both philosophers have addressed similar subjects with major points of divergence and convergence. On virtue, these two authors have almost similar opinions. However, it is their points of convergence or agreement that have had a huge impact on the modern world’s thinking and understanding of virtue and moral behavior.

On the other hand, some philosophies do not agree with the consequentialist theory so they developed a theory called non-consequentialist ethical theory as known as duty-based theory and deontologists. Deontologists is more concern on duty, rule, obligation, not on the result of action but on its principle. Whether an action is right or wrong is based on duty and the rules help human begin to distinguish right and wrong, phases: “one man action is another man right”. Deontologists is looked into the act itself, an action is right or wrong is depend on the act itself. We have duties regarding our own actions no matter what, be a responsible person. We are strong enough to handle all the consequence that we perform an action, think properly before