The Flaws Of Foots Moral System Essay

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

According to the definition of the Moral Compass text, moral compass is the reflective, international adoption of values and behaviors as a framework for realizing the good in oneself, in others, and in the social and material environment. My own moral compass is constructed mainly by my parents and the eastern social values and principles of relationships, which are largely influenced by the thoughts and ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and the Confucianism. Among them, Confucianism affects my country’s social values and furthermore my parents and my moral compass the most. In the contrast of Western culture, Confucianism puts a huge emphasis on the relationships between individuals in family, school,

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

These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?

Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

The First Proposition of Morality (the distinction between “acting from duty” and acting merely “in accordance with duty” but from a “direct” or “indirect inclination”)

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

“If the action would be good solely as a means to something else it is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical”. Kant

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.

To base morality on a system of hypothetical imperatives, Foot begins by explaining Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative can be contrasted with a categorical imperative in that it commands an “action that is good to some

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

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.

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from