Ethical, Moral And Moral Theory

Moral relativism is a prominent idea in philosophy that asks the question “Who am I to judge?”. This question focus primarily on morals between different people and cultures. As different cultures have different values and ways of life it stands that the morals between two cultures would vary, whether it be minimally or vastly. Midgley believed it was impossible to understand other cultures’ way, and that if we wanted to remain respectful and non discriminatory then we must not pass any form of judgement upon each other.

It is hard to judge someones actions without knowing the situation. For example, some people would say it is wrong to speed since that is breaking the law. However, when it came to a situation where someone was injured and needed to go to the hospital, they would agree that it is acceptable to drive over the speed limit to get the individual there to obtain a higher quality of health. Since moral standards are relative to individual commitments, this example would support ethical relativism.

Actions derived from the reflection on what we think and that actions could have an impact on others. In order to analyze if any course of action is right or wrong, there is a process that needs to be applied called moral reasoning. It is a way that applies a reasonable means of thinking of an individual or a group of an effort to carry out a right decision morally. In doing so, it is vital to acknowledge the significance and taking actions required in making a moral decision. However, before we could start this process, it is imperative to comprehend the essence of moral reasoning and consider what approach is essential in an effective application of moral analysis. These approaches are deontology, a process that involves analysis of ethical actions and responsibility on the basis if either its action is appropriate or not under a set of laws and utilitarian, a process by which morality of an action is decided on the outcome of its action. In this essay, I will discuss this subject matter in the following paragraphs.

Philosophers have always strived to nurture a relationship between moral judgment and emotion. They often analyze the various concepts put forward with the aim of explaining morality which would be the best approach to assess the credibility of the arguments for morality. Literature suggests that relativists hold onto their arguments based on the fact that various cultures tend to have varying moral belief systems.

In the article “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Harman argues for moral relativism in that, when an agreement is reached, morality becomes apparent in accordance with an understanding of one another. Ultimately, Harman molds his “logical” thesis towards one title within his relativism “inner judgments” (page 36) in morally absorbing what constitutes a right or wrong judgment while also considering all aspects of a situation implying reason to an individual and affirmation from society, for example. Defending these moral judgments relates to motivating and changing attitudes of which procure from an agreement, in other words, a form of the term moral relativism. Overall a case against judgments rationally defending what someone a part of society should or should not do and how moral judgments can be established through intentions, goals, and mere desires.

Cultural Relativism stems from the concept that numerous cultures possess individualistic and varying moral codes. In this paper, I will argue that cultural relativism is deemed as invalid. In respect to my argument, I will discuss its invalidity due to four varying concepts: non-excusable and excusable actions, morality of individuals, chaos, and the fact that not forming a judgement is still a judgement.

There are a variety of different ethical systems that have developed of the course of millennia. However, even though the subject has been covered so thoroughly, it is still heavily debated. The varieties of ethical systems that are in existence look at various ethical problems from different perspectives and can be applied differently in different circumstances. Because of the subjective aspects to applying ethics, they can be as much an art as they are a science. Ethics are something that must be practiced and really cannot be perfected. In this way, studying ethics is a continual process that does not really stop. This paper will argue that ethics are the most important subject that an individual can pursue.

An evaluation of the moral pluralism is a theory to find out how effective it is as an ethical theory is what inspired this article. An understanding of the theory is very necessary to be able to give a clear picture of it. The article looks at it in the form of the theory of value and the theory of right conduct and how effect it is as an ethical theory. Considering its shortcomings and the objections it has faced is a necessary step. With all that into consideration, I will support the argument that moral pluralism is incorrect due to the objection that it has not been able to provide verdicts for a varied range of cases.

The definition of moral relativism is that the moral judgments of true or false is relative based on many factors and there is no universal moral judgment is absolutely right or wrong. In this paper, I want to argue for moral relativism. In my opinion, there is no objective morality that all morality is made of people’s opinion, which influenced by different culture, time, and all the factors around individuals.

Moral Particularism is the philosophical theory that there are no moral principles that determine what one should or should not do. This theory is a stark contrast to other moral theories such as Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics, which are moral theories that rely on absolutes to determine which actions or morally correct or incorrect. Moral Particularism relies on the context of each varying situation to guide one’s moral compass. One can pick and choose which moral assertions to subscribe to for a single situation. There are no absolutes or overarching themes that can apply to more than one situation. In this defense, facets of moral Particularism will be explored at a deeper level and oppositions will be argued against. This is the most appealing moral theory due to the fact that everything about the situation is taken into account before concluding which action is the most moral. In a world inundated with gray scenarios, absolutes seem irrational and myopic. Every culture, person, and situation has its own beliefs, conditions, and moral conclusions.

I demonstrated in my opening argument that Utilitarianism operates under the premise that morality is objective. This means it is not based on personal preference or belief. I even provided a source to affirm this fact of objectivity. (1) Famous’ first contention is that normative ethics are subjective and thus cannot be used to affirm objectivity. This is entirely untrue. It is worth noting that he provides no source to back this claim up. Likely because no such sources exists. Normative ethics “rest on principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong.” (2) Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory.

Ethical theories are rooted in the previously explicated ethical principles. These theories each lay emphasis on a variety of features of an ethical dilemma and bring about the most morally accurate solution in accordance with the guidelines of each of the ethical theories. The society normally bases its personal choices of ethical theory on each person’s life experiences. Ethics can be referred to as well-based standards of knowing what is right and wrong which prescribe what human beings should do when it comes to fairness, benefits to society, obligations, rights and identify virtues (Tännsjö, 2013 23-36). Ethical theories direct virtues of loyalty, compassion and honesty. The following paper shall discuss about the roles of ethical theories, explaining each concept in detail.

Moral and Ethical theories often conflict with one another. It is hardly ever true that both theories agree with one another. Same is the case for Jean and Pierre. Following the four basic principles of Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, and Kantianism his actions will be discussed in the following paper. Examining his actions, he was in favor of following the moral instinct of Utilitarianism more than any other theory.

Ethics also known as moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves the classification, defense and endorsement of concepts of right and wrong actions that govern an individual’s behavior. Based on the “Billy and Suzy” scenario from a utilitarian ethical perspective, I would choose to follow Billy to ensure that nothing transpires between him and the lady he left the bar with. The best action to take would be to follow him and ensure that he does not leave for the night with the lady. I would force him into a cab if need be and ensure he gets home. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the morality of right and wrong solely on the consequences and effects of choosing to take one course of action over another. This is in light of taking into account the interests of others over your own.

Meaning of the phrases �the ends justifies the means’ The phrase �the ends justifies the means’ is a very popular in many fields and is also used in our day to day living. However, it is more used when talking about morality issues whereby it means that the morality of an action or behavior depends entirely on the result of that action and not the behavior or action itself. This is phrase that can be viewed different by proponent of different moral theories. A consequentialist theorist will agree with this phrase. For example, if one tells a lie to save the other person from grief, the action of telling the eye is viewed as good. Another example is whereby a person kills the other in order to save the others.