world. In the world is not how psychological ego-ism says it is because someone acts unselfishly, then something is wrong with psycho-logical egoism. In my opinion this argument is completely wrong and unsound. According to James Rachel, an author of “Elements of Moral Philosophy,” there two main arguments exist against psychological egoism. The first argument can be formulated as such: 1) Everyone always does what they most want to do. 2) If everyone always does what they most want to do, they
can be examined morally using John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism and the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) and Immanuel Kant’s Deontology and his Formula of Universal Law (FUL). I will also explain why Kantian Deontology works better as a moral theory in the case of Tom and Mary. In John Stuart Mill’s, “Utilitarianism,” Mill describes his theory as, “… not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with the exemption of pain (2001, p. 9).” What Mill is
In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he explains many things in the ninth chapter. He made statement about philosopher who decided the absolute moral rules. It explains in the beginning, there’s no definite answer for moral rules. Again, it’s about belief, cultural, tradition etc. Truman decision of dropping the bomb created conflict, some disagree and others agree. Categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative are explained with Kant’s conceptive on lying. His argument
fondness for the sake of both parties. The moral attributes of both individuals are significant in a friendship. According to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, “it is of these attributes that we were the friends”. What happens when these attributes change morally, though? Moral changes are when people alter the way they reason through decisions and how much they consider others while doing so. Is it ethical to abandon a genuine friendship due to a change in moral status, for better or worse, by either
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
Chapter 4 of “The Elements Of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels opens up by raising a question. Does morality hinge on religion and does religion then turn contingent to morality? In 1995, Judge Roy Moore was sued for having the Ten Commandments out in plain view on his desk. The American Civil liberties Union was called to act upon this infringement. The union stated that Judge Moore violated the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
possibility of moral facts. This shows the influence of David Hume (1711-1776), who believed that sentiment was the source of right and wrong. If you decide to help someone in need, you do so because you have feelings, not because you have reason. Hume believed in a common feeling for each other’s welfare. We all have a capacity for compassion, but it has nothing to do with reason. You can’t go from a factual statement (an ‘is’) to a moral one (an ‘ought). Logical positivism acknowledged that moral facts
issue which has been debated extensively within the diverse contexts of moral philosophy, religion and medical ethics. While it is interesting to note that different moral principles present equally valid arguments either in favor or against the problem of physician-assisted suicide, personal autonomy—that is, “the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one’s life, often regardless of any particular moral content” (Dryden)—should ultimately permit a person to choose the option
Problems with Cultural Relativism James Rachels discusses in his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the various problems that appear when analyzing the implications of cultural relativism. I will begin by explaining what cultural relativism is and the fallacy of the argument for it. Then, I will explain how other objections, such as an indefinite definition of culture and cultural relativism’s incompatibility with moral improvement, raise further problems with the theory. The cultural relativist
sweatshop workers work full time to support their families and provide food for them, which causes them to work in poor surroundings in which their lives are at jeopardy. Many of these workers are victims of what, according to James Rachels, the author of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, describes as “the minimum conception of morality”, this concept states that “morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving