Deontological ethics

Like most words, the word “egoist” can carry either a positive or negative connotation. Today it’s used as a derogatory term for when someone is being self-absorbed. Nevertheless, that wasn’t always the case. Ayn Rand once wrote, “The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the rest.” Here the word egoist isn’t used in a derogatory manner but in a complementary way. While the word carries either a negative or positive connotation being an

Among many of the scholars who have attempted to defend Kant’s political philosophy as part of the social contract tradition, there has been a general tendency to attenuate Kant to overcome many of the objections considered above. In Jeffrie Murphy’s investigation, he argues that Kant’s theory does not attempt to answer the question of why we have a moral obligation to obey the law, but instead to answer the question of when a law is just (Murphy, 1978). Like so many other scholars writing on Kant

In the novel Dr. Meredith Blitzmeyer provides a traditional fantasy figure of a scientist. The doctor was very optimistic, passionate, and a little all over the place. She had traveled many places and had seen very many things. She loves spending time doing science. She has very high tech weapons which she has made because of her interest in science. In the quote “Your anomalous energy enhancer” (Stevenson 215) Lord Ballister Blackheart asks Dr. Meredith Blitzmeyer if he could use her weapon which

If Kant were correct by saying that his formulas all connect and have similar and the same results, in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the humanity formulation would produce the same result as universal formulation , but this is not the case. Kant argues that the differences between the formulas are only subjective , meaning they have different connotations – one is directed towards universal morality and the other humanity morality. However, he sees that there is no objective practical

The debate between moral absolutism and relativism is a topic that I have never dealt with before. First, my post will attempt to describe the tenets of each philosophy. Then, it will discuss which of the two perspective is more beneficial with guiding American society’s moral decision making. The morality debate consists of strong ideology from both ends of the philosophical spectrum, with both harkening back to ancient Grecian times. According to Mastin (2008), Plato and Aristotle were more proponent

gather together into a unity so strangely variegated an assortment as he is” (KSA I p. 337). Even so Oger does acknowledge unpublished articles in which Nietzsche attempted to prove eternal return scientifically. But, because Nietzsche did not publish the proof despite having ample time to do so, Oger disregards the writing and speculates that the reason the proof was not published was because it undermined Nietzsche’s true intent. Ethical This interpretation views eternal return as an ethical imperative

Two of the moral theories are relativism and absolutism, but what does this mean? Relativism is define by Wilkins are in short anti-legalist and anti absolutist (85). Relativism and absolutism are a dispute over the moral principles in the world. It is not that they disagree with what about is right and wrong or the moral principles behind them. It is that they are however against how principles should be held. They are in complete contrast to one another, even though their own right can justify

Summarize as best you can the basic moral outlook embodied in the rule, which Kant believes applies to all rational agents: “always act so as to treat humanity, whether in yourself of in another, as an end and never merely as a means” (126). What does it mean to say this is a “categorical imperative”? Do you agree with Kant that we can think of this as a command or moral law that is derived from our own rational nature? Further, provide an example of an action that could be recommended on utilitarian

Ethical egoism is a consequentialist moral theory. A consequentialist moral theory, says that an action is good if it brings about the best consequences for all persons involved. Ethical egoism says that an action is morally correct if it is in accordance with a person’s self-interest. In other words, an action is good if it brings about the best outcome for a person. Ethical egoism is a normative statement, meaning as a society this is how we should act. There are two major categories of ethical

conceive of wild living things as having that kind of worth, such agents are adopting a certain ultimate moral attitude toward the natural world. This is the attitude I call “respect for nature.” It parallels the attitude of respect for persons in human ethics. When we adopt the attitude of respect for persons as the proper (fitting, appropriate) attitude to take toward all persons as persons, we consider the fulfillment of the basic interests of each individual