The original work of the theory mainly focused on the cultural differences that exhibit in individuals. Subsequent development concentrates on the political ideology and the application of the theory in politics. Scholars argue that moral foundation theory can explain the presence of disparity in opinions concerning political issues like abortion and gay marriages. The three categories of politician observed in theory are the libertarians, conservatives, and progressives. According to research by Iyer et al. (2012, p.42367) libertarians use fairness and liberty foundations only in their reasoning. Conservatives apply all the six foundations equally, while progressives in their argument use the care and impartiality.
“What is the Purpose of Morality?” discusses the importance of morals, as well as defines what morals are. Throughout the text, the author makes the argument, and demonstrates through the incorporation of other texts, that the success of a society depends on how ethical that society is in nature (37). Morality keeps society together in an orderly fashion, resolves conflicts, and differentiates what is right from what is wrong (43). The author does acknowledge that morals limit human nature, but that this is for the benefit of society, because it suppresses any internal evil (42).
Ethics is a study dealing with standards that prescribe rules on what people ought to do based on various criteria such as obligation, human rights, and virtue. More precisely, it is a development and establishment of one’s moral principle. And under the normative ethics, there are three categories of ethical frameworks: virtue ethics, consequentialism, and deontology. In this essay, I will more concentrate on consequentialism, especially utilitarianism, and deontology to make compare and contrast analysis of each other and how each case works differently and causes divergent result in the same scenario.
Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.
Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.
Those thought to be ethical or moral are described in terms of their values in regards to honesty, integrity and good character. Our ethical conduct originates from our values which are greatly influenced by our morals; they provide guidance and are our standard for the ways in which we carry out and view right and wrong decisions. For these reasons, personal ethics are said to be our foundation and, as such, often influence how we administer ethical codes of conduct in our personal lives, and the ways in which we carry out our organizational duties. The normative foundations of public service ethics are those standards used to justify and defend one’s conduct, i.e. reasoning about obligations, consequences and ultimate ends in specific situations. In addition to personal codes of conduct, leadership in the public sector requires the ability to apply ethical reasoning based on formal controls and technical standards.
Kennan breaks moral responsibility down to two entities: government and individual. He argues, “Government is an agent, not a principal. Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience” (Kennan, 34). Kennan also argues that morality is only conceptually possible
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,
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.
Utilitarianism, deontological, and virtue theory ethics are three normative approaches to ethics. This paper will go over the similarities and differences between virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological principles. It will include information of the variations in how each concept details ethics, morality, and it will also discuss a personal experience to describe the correlation between virtue, values, and moral perceptions as they relate to one of the three theories.
Moral and ethics defines the nature of our society and culture today. They are both complimentary in nature but different in some ways. Moral determines person’s character when an individual interacts in social and personal relationship and Ethics are the philosophical study of morality or moral standards. Utilitarian theory, Virtue ethics, and Deontological are some of the examples of major ethical theories that covered in this essay. Collaboration on personal experiences added as well by explaining the relationship between virtue, values, and moral concepts.
Sometimes agents are forced to choose between the morally right action and that which would be in their self-interest. When conflicting demands are imposed on a person, how are they to determine the best course of action? In “The Ring of Gyges: Overridingness and the Unity of Reason,” David Copp argues that neither morality nor self-interest overrides the other, and so there is “never an overall verdict as to which action is required simpliciter” in “conflict cases” (86-87). Furthermore, he denies that there is any normatively supreme standard (87). This paper will first expound Copp 's definitions of normative properties and standards. Secondly, his account of overridingness and his arguments against the supremacy of the standards of morality, self-interest, and personal excellence will be explicated. Finally, his claim that any standard which is posited as the answer to the overridingness question will result in circularity will be analyzed. It will be argued that his definition of an “authoritative” standard forces him to either accept that a normatively supreme standard does exist or, otherwise, that there is no non-arbitrary way to attribute normative significance to any standards at all.
Thus, actions, laws, policies, etc., are morally right to the degree and only to the degree that they produce some good or some useful outcome. right nor inherently wrong; rather, moral worth attaches only to
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
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.