The Theory Of Moral Realism

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.

Each individual justifies their actions and wishes by appealing to various moral principles based on the local or individual conception of the good. In the argument of morality and where are those moral judgments come from, brings us to the central question of ethics, that is “What is the good for human beings?” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle gives his answer in Nicomachen Ethics suggesting that the purpose of morality is to enable us to lead good lives, and it is necessary to acquire virtues to achieve the good. However, this view of ethics based on virtues led to a relativism toward the notion that believes the criteria of ethics is tied up with virtues which the local and individual approves to be good. In other words, the conception of goodness is based on the tradition or custom of the local society/groups or the individual. Therefore, many suggest that the high degree of individualism that was shown in Aristotle’s virtues ethics theory proves that he supports cultural relativism. In this paper, I will defend Aristotelian ethical approach based on virtues and refute relativists argument by showing the objections that against the local ethical objectivity.

Louis Vaughn states that the purpose of morality is not to describe how things are, but to “prescribe how things should be” (2). In Philosophy, moral relativism and moral objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law is written. In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief.

Throughout history, people have made decisions based upon their past experiences and their moral insight. These decisions change the lives of others and result in the least possible damage because of the moral “gut feeling”. Many people have opinions that change over time and the choices that people would make but deep down inside they know it’s not the right decision. In Arthur Miller’s historical fiction novel The Crucible, many characters have opinions and decisions they would make but influential characters and events change throughout the book. This results in them choosing the right moral decision that minimizes the damage to others and is the best moral choice.

In the article, “Morality and Moral Philosophy,” the author, William K. Frankena, gives the reader an overview and definition of ethics. Frankena uses Plato’s dialogue as an example to illustrate “the sort of thinking” we ought to do when faced with a moral dilemma. The purpose of this article is to describe the nature of ethics or moral philosophy and to demonstrate the different approaches to thinking ethically in decision making. There are those who oppose the idea of thinking ethically about moral issues. One could argue that taking an ethical approach is not always the best answer to a particular problem. Ethics doesn’t always show the right answer to the problem. Others might say, however, that applying moral principles when making moral

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics explores the idea of an ethical framework based on virtues, deliberation, and choice. The key to being virtuous is to strike a balance between the extremes on either side of a virtue. Arriving at what constitutes as a virtuous balance is achieved through the process of deliberation and then action. Sartre and the existentialists say that existence precedes essence; the good starts from human subjectivity rather than from known virtues. Through a person’s choices, they determine what is good. Though their theories of what constitutes the good may differ, choice is a key element of both ethical frameworks. The differences that each ethical framework has about what the good is are not mutually exclusive. In

Ethical naturalism is a realist, cognitivist position which posits that moral facts correspond to some sort of natural facts, which may or may not be capable of definition. Peter Railton in “Moral Realism” posits that such a definition is possible, offering an extensive account of non-moral good.

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the

Through the readings we have done and in class, we have discussed the moral status of many different actions using the guidelines of different moral theories. I will be focusing on just two of the theories that we’ve covered: the Kantian perspective and the Utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will present the two perspectives and give my analysis of the differences between the ways in which these two theories determine the moral status of an action.

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.

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

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

Essentially, all philosophers including Kant and Aristotle approached ethics from a specific conception of human nature. While some saw the good life as the realization or actualization of the potential we possess by the mere virtue of being human beings, others thought that man needs a formal standard of moral judgment that can steer them away from moral inclinations. In this paper, I will talk about Kant’s and Aristotle’s views on the matter and how it impacted their respective ethical and moral theories.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

At eighteenth century, the cost of increasing development of capitalism is anomie: people chasing material life insanely even sacrifice others’ benefits. Because of this, Adam Smith, a successful philosopher and economist, released that the original morality principle was not suitable for that society anymore, and it needed to build another new theory system to suit the developing society. He wrote two masterpieces that proposed his ideas: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which discusses the human development by analysing the human emotion, and The Wealth of Nations, which summarises the development of capitalism and it is also a foundation for today’s economy. This essay will analyse the self-interest, plays as a motivator role in morality and economy field, and benefits the development in that society. Moreover, will suggest some limitations of Smith’s idea.