Morality And The Moral Theories

When considering the theory of morality. There are many different views about the guidelines humans should follow in order to be a good human and live in a functional environment. Monism, pluralism, and particularism are three different ideas about how one should make decisions. Pluralism seems to be the most plausible in our society.

In our view, human life deserves full respect and protection at every stage and in every condition. The intrinsic wrong of destroying innocent human life cannot be "outweighed" by any material advantage -- in other words, the end does not justify an immoral means. Acceptance of a purely utilitarian argument for mistreating human life

The proponents of the death penalty like to use the idea that the penalty is okay because in their point of view as they see it is as “an eye for an eye”. The model of the death penalty is rather contradictory. In the article by Brad Bushman article “The Death Penalty is a Flawed Form of Punishment”, bushman discusses the contradictions within the capital punishment as:

Supporters argue, “That there is a powerful moral aspect to putting convicted killers to death” (Should capital punishment be allowed in the United States?). The intentions of the act to be moral and humane towards intense murderers seems as righteous as it can be. Of course it is only fair that “they maintain, the punishment fits the crime”. In which it is clarified that if one is to break the law then the law in which they have accepted to break should be their own punishment; per say death is the law in which they have broken then death is what they should be punished by; it seems only equivalent in justice. But on the other side of the window, it is all the

Do the ends justify the means? This ethics question is something that we humans have faced and continue face in today’s society. Is it morally reasonable to commit immoral actions if the outcome is right and just, or if the outcome benefits more than what the actions did wrong? Some argue that if the outcome is morally right then the actions are morally justified, while others argue that the morality of the end result does not justify the actions taken to achieve it; who knows which side is right or if they are both right or maybe should we rethink the phrase “does the end justify the means”.

Many people have heard of the question, “does the end justify the means?”, but what does it mean? This question can be answered on both sides as yes it does justify and no it does not justify the means. It all depends on the situation in hand. Were the steps to achieve the end good or bad? If the steps to the end were good then it justifies but if it was bad then it does not justify. So the answer to the question would be depending on the means to get there and the end results.

Another moral theory, also born of Deontological Perspectives, comes from WD Ross. In contrast to Kant, who stated that moral positions can be deduced by reason and are absolutely binding, Ross believes that we determine moral positions through intuition of the rightness or wrongness on the action. This intuition allows us to determine what our duties are while these duties are not dependent on the outcomes or circumstances, but how we rank these duties is dependent on a situation. In turn, this creates what Ross refers to as Prima Facie duties. Prima Facie duties are duties that are obligatory duties that can be trumped by other duties depending on our situation. Ross gives an example of seven of these prima facie duties in his writings: beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, self-improvement, fidelity, reparation, and gratitude. These duties arise because we intuit them to be true and binding duties. In Ross’s view, all of these duties are binding, but he does not exclude, as Kant does that these duties may overlap and run contrary to one another in any given situation. We can only act in accordance with what our perception is of the situation and try to do our best, but we may often fail as a result. While this theory is superior to Kant in that it does allow for more universal applicability and wiggle room to fit various cultures, the main issue with Ross’s theory is that it relies on the intuition of flawed humans to determine self-evident duties and does not

Reconciling moral theories and determining the compatibility of their particulars can be a daunting task. Determining the compatibility of John Stuart Mill’s modern moral theory of utilitarianism with Aristotle’s pre-modern moral philosophy will involve an in-depth exploration for each moral philosophy, comparing and contrasting the smallest details of each.

When Iris Murdoch speaks of morality, she acknowledges it as a gateway to religion. She assumes that we connect our moral behavior to our own wisdom and experiences or to the control of religion. Friedrich Nietzsche, a highly pessimistic immoralist on the other hand, believes that our lives should not be controlled by such religious moral codes set forth by the Church. We, as people, should have the will to power when it comes to morality. Although Iris Murdoch’s Morality and Religion and Friedrich Nietzsche’s Morality as Anti-Nature have similarities as regards to their theme, Murdoch’s very neutral position on the effects of religion toward morality and hopeful attitude to God’s existence allows constructive criticism to be made by Nietzsche.

A moral theory has an explanation of what makes an action correct. Great example is the right to own property. On the other hand a moral code are rules to live by. For instance, the ten commandments stated by the Catholic Church. Needless to say, these are both examples of codes and theory I was raised to believe in.

The development of morals is an often studied topic in psychology. However, there is a debate over whether morality is learned, or something humans are born with. A number of experiments have shown that the latter may be a large part of the truth. Infants seem to have basic concepts of empathy, helping others, and punishment before they can speak or participate in society. However, humans continue to develop their morals throughout their lives. These findings simply support the idea that there is an evolved base moral core that is present in all humans from birth.

Theories of morality and ideas on how to achieve it have many interpretations throughout time. The five philosophers we studied in this course all have different understandings of what our purpose in life is and the different ways to obtain it. After studying the various theories, my own moral worldview has changed and grown since the start of this course. The philosopher that impacted me the most is Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the sixteenth century Enlightenment era who believed that human reasoning should guide actions and that our rationality can build a better society. Kant’s philosophy showed me that there is more to life than just acquiring happiness.

In the domain of moral theory there are many approaches to see what a moral action is. The aim of this paper is to evaluate a moral theory known as Utilitarianism. The idea of Utilitarianism is summed up in “The Principle of Utility” or better known as “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Bentham 6). The principle proposes the idea that an action is right if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain to the greatest number of people. Numbers do not dictate the ethics or morality of an action. However, is there a way in which this theory could be utilized in minor situations? The purpose of this paper is to explain Bentham’s moral theory as well as to demonstrate why the theory is impossible to calculate. This essay will also discuss arguments for and against Bentham’s theory in order to demonstrate that it is not applicable to large-scale scenarios due to the complexity of the theory.

Case 2.3 from “Applying Normative Theories to a Moral Situation” will be used for a brief analysis of two of the six moral theories recently studied. As a professional I am encountered with a few ethical dilemmas in case 2.3. For example, is the 4 years old child my only patient? If not, how does patient client confidentiality factor into this case? As a professional physician should I lie to my patient first and foremost? Should I lie to the other members of the family, to my profession, and last but not least to myself? Must I start the quest for a kidney from a cadaver? Should I inform the child’s mother that the father is a perfect match, with the motive of shaming the father into donating his kidney to save his child’s life?

Christianity has been enculturated by the African people to be “truly African and truly Christian”. By doing this through various practices it makes the religion profoundly colorful and vivid so that the Biblical stories and memories come to life through the village and its people. There is a resonating deep understanding by the community that their morality is steeped in their traditions and ancestral worship. The people understand that everything comes from and flows from God and that the ancestors (also referred to as the living-dead) have a vital part in- not just their individual development but to move further as a community. In African Traditional Religion, the answers to these moral question delineate the conception of morality in