[unused38]on's Moral Sense, By Hutcheson And Shaftesbury

In Virtuous Minds, Phillip Dow helps the reader understand what it means to love God with all of their minds. Dow does this by giving the reader a list of seven intellectual virtues, which can be performed in good or bad ways. Some may choose the path of cheating, arrogance, laziness, or cowardice, but Dow hopes this book will provide an option for recovering intellectual character. He splits the book into three separate parts, part one defines the seven intellectual virtues, while part two presents the awards that will come with these virtues, and finally part three provides the reader with a series of steps to reach this character.

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.

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

Moral codes are controversial, diverse, and defining. Everyone lives with a standard measure of ethics that tells them right from wrong. In the stories “R.M.S. Titanic”, “Into Thin Air”, “The Dark Side of Everest”, and “Explorers Say There’s Still a lot to Look For”, one or more characters are faced with one decision; save another man and risk their life, or stay safe and leave the others.

In his writing, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston explains people are more judgmental and it causes a lot more problems than solutions. Anthony Weston feels Ethics requires us to be mindful thinkers, because it helps fight unjust prejudgment. I personally feel this could help fix court systems, federal, and state wide corruption. Most importantly being a mindful thinker could help businesses. There are so many reasons that could fall under Anthony’s theory. Getting to know the author and his work. I feel his mindful thinking is to reach out to others and interact with more people in an expressive way. Weston believes this will help our community progress in a positive manner towards others. I think he feels ethics requires us

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

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?

| * Appreciation of wider rules and understanding in society * Consequence of actions understood * Interest in moral issues and

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Using two articles “On the Origin of Good and Evil” by Richard Taylor and “Why Morality Is Not Relative” by James Rachels from the book Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, author, Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn, this essay will first try to identify what each of two articles says about the nature of good and evil, and is everything on morality is relative. Taylor from the article “On the Origin of Good and Evil”, states that morality is not inspirational, but a natural reality which that mean that we are conative being, and if there are no desires, there are no values and no good or evil. His argument takes place on purposeful and cognizant living being, like ourselves, who reacts to the world in good and bad ways that relate directly to our needs. The six topics Taylor illustrated in the article are men as conative beings, which he talked about men are rational or cognitive beings that men have needs, desires, and goals, they have certain wants and generally go about trying to satisfy them in various ways; conation as the precondition of good and evil, which it is about any distinction between good and evil, and between right and wrong can be made; the emergence of good and evil, the emergence of right and wrong, that if there no good and no evil, there is nothing but bare facts of this kind or that; the emergence of right and wrong, which he explained about ethical notions as right and wrong or for moral obligation as long as we imagined a world

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another