Who Knew That Consciousness And Moral Responsibility

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

Williams also delivers the idea of agent-regret which, to him, matters to the person in the unlucky case more than any extrinsic moral judgments. Agent-regret is defined as “thought being formed in part by first personal conceptions of how one might have acted otherwise”, (Williams, p.27), and required “a first-personal subject-matter” and “not yet merely a particular kind of psychological content, but also a particular kind of expression”, (Williams, 27). Hence, even if the driver A is morally treated as equal as driver B, the agent-regret of guilt may follow him to the

Moral philosophy considers the role of morality in an individual’s life. In her essay, “Moral Saints”, moral philosopher Susan Wolf strives to establish what is wrong with morality. Wolf does this by examining the idea of Moral Sainthood, which teaches that an individual should be as morally perfect as possible. Through the analysis of two distinct products of Moral Sainthood, Wolf arrives at the conclusion that while there is nothing inherently wrong with morality, there are drawbacks when it dominates an individual’s life. In this paper, I will first establish the expectations that Wolf must meet in order to prove her argument. I will then present the two products of Moral Sainthood that she will be using as proof. After, I will raise an objection to the soundness of her argument. Lastly, by responding to what I believe Wolf would reveal as an oversight on my part, I will insist that her argument still is not consequential.

Literal interpretation has remarkable consequences when it comes to moral responsibility. Because literal interpretation interferes in one’s life, it is in control of one’s actions, not that person. Moral responsibility takes place when one is in control of their own actions. And when one is not in control of their own actions, moral responsibility

Moral responsibility is “the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations.” Since the foretelling of history began, many historians have placed their biased opinion on important events that took place in the past. This can mean leaving out relevant information about an important event or person which causes an altered understanding on the subject. Historians are faced with many different types of evidence regarding an event that took place in the past. As a result they can choose what they want to ignore or accept based off of their personal morals.

When analyzing a values conflict or moral dilemma, one should, as far as possible, be aware of the beneficial or harmful effects that result from the action and how it affects the people involved, including of course, the person performing the action. Are the effects emotional? Physical? Immediate? Delayed? Obvious? Subtle? Hidden? Intentional? (Ruggiero 112). What are the effects of our actions on our obligations or values? A morally aware person must take into account the effects of our obligations, both on others and on what values

The impact of Kantian ethics has been truly extensive in the philosophical community for centuries now. Numerous philosophers have accepted, disputed and further developed the Kantian style of ethics in the modern era. German philosopher Immanuel Kant has established a theory based on a simple few concepts. Some of the key features of this theory are intrinsic goodness, moral worth and a few others that I will establish further later in the essay. In this thesis I will be highlighting if consequences play a sufficiently important role in Kantian ethics. I will argue the case that according to Kant, consequences do not play a sufficient enough role in his ethics, however I will be giving praise to some ideas he does bring up but I feel

When I think of consciousness, I seemed to compare this to the state of being aware of surroundings. Somehow, there are various theories that will argue that we can still be in the state of consciousness even when we are sleep as well as someone in a coma. Nonetheless, the term consciousness can be said to be inconclusive or even referred to an enigma. In fact, it is so mysterious that numerous philosophers and other experts such as Plato, Sigmund Freud and so many others to mention have explored and attempted to validate their theories on consciousness. Due to its elusiveness, philosophers and other truth-seekers attempt to surmise answers by pursuing diverse facts and evidences that can lead to their theories (Manson, 2011). On the other

Are we Morally responsible? Can we be held accountable for what we do? In “ Peter Van Inwagen: The moral argument for freedom”, Inwagen explains his view on moral accountability. He strongly believes that we have moral freedom and have the ability to choose from right and wrong. Many Philosophers believed otherwise. Although it’s arguable, the most competent human being has the ability to judge their action before doing so and are aware of the outcomes. Whether you’re hurting someone or intentionally trying to destroy something. With the exception of those who are mentally disable, everyone has the ability to make such decision. Inwagen stated “... It is impossible for us to cease talking in ways that manifest a belief in moral

According to Immanuel Kant the driving force behind our actions should be dictated by what is inherently good as sole consideration and not be based upon the effects of what such actions may produce such as the case in the consequentialist theory of cause. In this essay Kant’s ethical non-consequentialist theory will be briefly investigated and a comparison drawn between the two different theories in order to establish merit in employment thereof in practice.

This chapter, which is the subject of our study is the first book The principle of responsibility: ethics test for technological civilization, and is titled, "The changed character of human action."

An understanding of morality, the reasons to be moral, and the reasons certain actions are considered morally right or wrong is essential to the task of determining the way society functions and the way individuals ought to act. This task has been at the forefront of ethics in philosophy for centuries. Contractualist ethical theories have proposed answers to these questions. Contractualist ethical theories are essentially theories that explain morality by using a social contract, or agreement. In order to determine whether contractualism has been successful at answering questions of morality a comparison of the two main contractualist theories is necessary. Mutual-advantage contractualism is the first of these theories and argues that morality should be understood as a contract between self motivated parties. However, the disadvantages and objections to the theory have caused some philosophers to favour the second version, reasonable-agreement contractualism. Reasonable-agreement contractualism argues that a contract has developed between members of society from actions that are considered morally reasonable. However, like mutual-advantage contractualism, the theory has disadvantages and objections. Therefore, an understanding of the ways both version of contemporary contractualism attempt to solve the problems raised in the objections will then be of use when determining which version of contractualism is best, and whether contractualism as a whole is

We are faced with choices that add or take away from our love for God, love of ourselves, or love of our neighbors, and it is the job of every conscience to help guide us to making the right choice. Every day, we are faced with choices that are immoral and moral. Our conscience helps us solve the problems, especially when it comes to dealing with good or bad. Our conscience is connected to God because everyone in the world knows, deep down, that they are to be and do good, and this obligation could come only from God.

The question of morality has been circulating through the minds of men since our development of a conscious; we all have claims about what we believe is morally wrong or right. In an attempt to define morality and its limitations, philosophers have come up with a concept known as “Ethical Noncognitivism.” Proponents of ethical noncognitivism put forth the idea that ethical sentences to do not express propositions, and therefore cannot hold any truth value. When people make a moral claim, such as “stealing is bad,” they are in effect saying “boo, stealing.” In order to better understand ethical noncognitivism, we will begin by grasping its origins, thoroughly defining, offering principle varieties that have stemmed out of ethical noncognitivism, and critically analyzing various objections.

William David Ross’s theory of right conduct is an alternative to utilitarianism and deontological theories. Instead of focusing on the happiness and pleasure created from actions or the duty to perform a certain kind of action, Ross offers claims that prima facie duties should be the basis of moral decision-making. In this paper, I will explain the general concept of a prima facie duty and present Ross’s seven prima facie duties and how one makes moral judgments when they conflict.