James Kant's Theory : The Elements Of Moral Philosophy

The first objection was that the Moral Law was our herd instinct and had not yet been developed. Lewis breaks down what instincts are and provides several ways of how the instincts play into the Moral Law. He uses the analogy of playing the piano, the moral law is the tune and the keys represent the instincts. Pressing keys can produce right notes and wrong notes but the timing of the notes make for the music. The other objective tried to place the Moral Law in the realm of education. But Lewis insisted that if we do not know a particular thing, and he used several examples, how would education be the cause of having the Moral Law within that particular educational

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

-She claims this essay is moral philosophy and feels she must clarify whether her philosophy is

However, Chappell does not disregard the moral theory nor the Master Factor and Question all together. He goes on to talk about how there can be many sub-questions, and with these sub-questions, moral theory can become sophisticated. The problem does not lie with moral theory in general, but rather it is a problem about crudity of thought. We must be willing to be open-minded with thinking of the moral theory, for it not to corrupt our minds.

The first mistake is in his comparison following the example of there being different moral codes. In outlining and explaining the cultural differences argument, he gives an example that he began the article with regarding the Callatians and the Greeks, and their differences in funerary practices. Rachels asks that "from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective

Philippa Foot finds trouble with the arguments of Kant, who said that it was necessary to distinguish moral judgments from hypothetical imperatives. Although this may have become an unquestionable truth, Foot says that this is a misunderstanding.

Rachels (175) begins his essay by noting the clear historical plurality of moral philosophies. To the question of ethics and morality, philosophers have given a plethora of responses. However, for Rachels, this diversity itself does not mean that a moral philosophy, which would be satisfactory, is impossible. This is because Rachels emphasizes the link between ethics or morality and reason. Rachels writes, "Human beings have evolved as rational beings. Because we are rational, we are able to take some facts as reasons for behaving one way rather than another. Thus, if an action would help to satisfy our desires, needs, and so on-- in short, if it would promote our interests – then we take that as a reason to do it." (176) The entire question of morality is, for Rachels, one of rationality. The only "reason" that the question of morality arises, to frame Rachels argument in another way, is because we have "reason." An animal, therefore, does not ask what the best course of conduct he should take in his existence. Human beings do ask this question and, for Rachels, this shows that the question is rational. But the further key point of the argument is then as follows: If we have, on the one hand, different theories of morality, on the other hand, theories of morality are ultimately rooted in rational thinking. And

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.

We have learned about different kinds of theories, consequentialist and non-consequentialist we are going to see if these theories are accountable for its principles in terms of the standard ethical principles such as truth telling, generosity, misconduct, keeping promises, not offending people, etc. To me not all these theories are not 100% perfect and does not fully account for its principles.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

I agree. The theory is appealing because it is practical. I think Vaughn does a good job of presenting his moral theory, while taking into consideration that moral judgments are a matter of opinion of what is right or wrong.

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.

The purpose and aim for moral theory has to do with the desire to have some method to follow when we reason about what is morally right and wrong. In other words, the main aim of moral theory is to discover a decision procedure that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning about matters of moral concern (3 Timmons). It is similar in the way that Descartes was trying to find a way and strong structure for knowledge. Instead of knowledge, the aim for ethics and moral theory is to figure out what is morally right and just so then we can gain a better understanding for the world around us. Ethics keeps people and our Earth morally grounded. If we have no expectations, we would not be where we are today in the world with all advances, and friendships. We need to think about a way to come to the procedure in knowing what is right or wrong.

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be