Ethics and Moral Theory Essay

The words entire and deterrent exampleity (and cognates) ar often used interchangeably. However, it is recyclable to kick in the following distinction theology is the system through which we determine in good order field and unseasonable conduct i.e., the guide to veracious or accountability conduct. Ethics is the philosophical study of incorruptity.What, then, is a honourable supposition? A guess is a organize invest of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of f moments or concepts. A chaste system, then, explains why a certain natural ch solelyenge is impose on _or_ oppress or why we ought to act in certain ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine remedy and incorrect conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we suppose and discuss in a reason way, and so value, specific moral issues. Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we can non draw a kinky divide between moral theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics).For instance, in order to critically evaluate the moral issue of positive put through, we must non attempt to evaluate what actions or policies ar right (or revile) sovereign of what we take to determine right and wrong conduct. You exit see, as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at least(prenominal) nigh moral theory. When evaluating the merits of close to stopping point regarding a case, we ordain always (or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking c put down to how right and wrong is determined in general, and then apply that to the case at hand. Note, though, that sound moral thinking does not simply involve going star way from theory to applied issue. sometimes a case may elicit that we need to change or put our thinking rough what moral theory we think is the best, or perhaps it mightiness lead us to think that a preferred theory needs modification. other important distinctionAre moral theories descriptive or prescriptiv e ? In presenting a moral theory, are we hardly describing how heap, in their every twenty-four hour period doings and thinkings, design a judgement about what is right and wrong, or are we prescribing how people ought to make these judgements? Most take moral theories to be prescriptive. The descriptive accounts of what people do is left(p) to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study moral philosophy, postulate to know what is the proper(ip) way of determining right and wrong. in that location have been m any different proposals. here(predicate) is a brief summary.Theories of Morality (1) Moral Subjectivism Right and wrong is determined by what you the subject effective happens to think (or whole step) is right or wrong. In its everyday form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the possibility of moral review article and argumentation. In essence, right and wrong lose their cerebrate ing because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is right, at that place are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyones behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right). This shows the strike flaw in moral subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is veritable to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues. (2) Cultural Relativism Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. Cultural Relativism is al to the highest degree linked to Moral Subjectivism. It implies that we cannot criticize the actions of those in cultures other than our own. And again, it amounts to the denial of universal moral principles. Also, it implies that a culture cannot be ill-considered about what is right and wrong (which seems n ot to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true). (3) Ethical expedience Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is baseborn to act contrary to your self-interest. Ethical self-assertion is usually based upon Psychological Egoism that we, by constitution, act selfishly. Ethical egotism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to plan for at least some high goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but rather that we testament (ideally) act so as to increase our self interest. This may require that we deep-six some immediate pleasures for the sake of achieving some long term goals. Also, honorable self-assertion does not exclude support others.However, egoists depart help others only if this will nurture their own interests. An ethical egoist will exact that the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think in that location will be some psycheal favour in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of veridical altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to the key implausibility of Ethical Egoism that the person who helps others at the expense of their self-interest is rattling acting immorally. Many think that the ethical egoist has misunderstood the concept of morality i.e., morality is the system of practical think through which we are guided to restrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that genuine altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited. (4) comprehend Command surmisal Many claim that there is a needful connecter between morality and worship, such that, without religion (in particular, without graven image or gods) there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong behaviour. Although there are related claims that religion is necessary to motivate and guide people to have in morally good way, well-n igh take the claim of the necessary data link between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the directions of perfection (or the gods). This view of morality is known as augur Command Theory. The upshot is that an action is right or obligatory if idol command we do it, wrong if paragon commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if paragon does not command that it not be done. Divine Command Theory is astray held to have several serious flaws.First, it presupposes that immortal or gods exist. Second, plain if we assume that deity does exist, it presupposes that we can know what theology commands tho even if we accept theism, it looks like even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant remonstration 2500 years ago. He asked Is something right (or wrong) because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? If the latter, then right and wrong are independent of the gods commands Divine Comman d Theory is false.If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the dictatorial will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, contradictory commands). Most think that right and wrong are not imperious that is, some action is wrong, take, for a reason. Moreover, that if God commands us not to do an action, He does so because of this reason, not simply because He arbitrarily commands it. What makes the action wrong, then, is not Gods commanding it, but the reason. Divine Command Theory is false again. (5) fair play Ethics Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the traditional virtues making the good person. The most widely discussed is Aristotles account. For Aristotle, the primeval line is Ethica = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character i.e., the moral virtues. Aristotle, and most of the ancient Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e., modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human creations very happy. True happiness is calledEudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfilment / self- actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that there are objective reasons for living in accordance with the traditional virtues (wisdom, courage, justice and temperance). For Aristotle, this comes from a particular account of human nature i.e., the virtuous life is the happiest (most fulfilling) life.