Natural Moral Law - in theory and in practice.
Outline the theory of Natural Moral Law (18) Natural Moral Law is an absolutist ethical theory which means that there is a moral command that is true to everyone all of the time, so it is universal and hopes to achieve absolute morality; “As fire burns both here and in Persia” Aristotle. Cicero stated that humans have the ability to reason and follow an intended purpose so that “true law is right in accordance to nature”. It is based on deontology which originates from the Greek word ‘deon’ meaning duty. This means the motivation of an action is defined independently of its outcome and the action must be intrinsically good rather than instrumental. As it is concerned with reason Mel Thompson expressed the theory as “the rational understanding and following of God’s final purpose”. It is a deductive theory because it starts with the basic principles and from these the right course of action in a particular situation is deduced. The theory is a pre-Christian idea which was first introduced by Aristotle, a Greek philosopher. Aristotle believed that there is an efficient cause which allows us to fulfill our Final cause (telos or purpose). For example we plant seeds and water them as an efficient cause to reach the final cause of a flower blossoming. The efficient cause is a statement of fact of descriptive ethics (saying what is there) however the final cause
All ethical statements are prescriptive. Discuss
“All Ethical Statements are prescriptive” The Philosopher R.M. Hare came up with the idea of prescriptivism and what he meant by this basically was that other people should agree with a statement and follow it due to ethical statements having an intrinsic sense. The role of ethical statements is to say what ‘ought’ to be done and such prescriptions are moral because they are universal. Hare then goes on to talk about the word ‘good’ and that we should always link it in relation to a set of standards, and this therefore means it has a descriptive meaning, However A J Ayer’s theory of emotivism allows people to make decisions more efficiently due to the theory describing the workings of the world accurately. A follower of prescriptivism might argue that because humans are known for breaking and getting confused with laws and rules to do with morality, that they need an easy straight forward guide to aid them to act on instinct and not have to wait to decide what do to. This will allow humans to act in a logical way and fit into society. On the other hand one might point out the illogical necessity of a moral guide. Creating a moral guide whether it’s simple or not does not ignore the fact that it has been created merely for people to conform to society’s preferences. Prescribing what a person ought to do isn’t what they should do, it’s what they are
Explain how Natural Law is both teleological and deontological.
Explain how Natural Law is both teleological and deontological. Natural Law, according to Cicero is, “right reason in agreement with nature.” In other words, Natural Law is a set of five distinct principles which every human being is naturally inclined to live their life by. These five principles are known as the primary precepts. It is said by many that Natural Law is purely deontological considering the fact that you have a duty not to go against the primary precepts. However, if one delves deeper into the origins of Natural Law they will find that in fact, it comes from an Aristotelean teleological worldview and therefore, Natural Law is both teleological and deontological. Deontological ethics is a normative, ethical position which judges morality on one’s adherence to the rules. Deontological ethics in most cases are not interested in the consequence of obeying the rules but instead on one’s duty to the rules themselves. According to Aquinas, Natural Law is the divine will of God and thus, one is sinning if they do something which goes against Natural Law. For example, Aquinas would say that contraception is intrinsically wrong and is an apparent good instead of a real good due to the fact that it goes against the primary precept of reproduction. The fact that Natural Law focuses much on the ethicalness on an action and on the duty to a set of rules shows that
Explain the differences between Cultural Relativism and Cultural Absolutism
A) Explain the differences between Cultural relativism and absolutism. Moral absolutism is the idea that there are set values and that some things are objectively right or wrong regardless of the circumstances. Pope John Paul the 2nd said “ If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times” The ancient Greek philosopher Plato supported the idea of moral absolutism because he believed that humans were inherently bad and so we need absolutes to guide us. The opposite of an absolute view is a relative morality, which takes into account the circumstances before deciding if something is good or bad. Protagoras said “man is the measure of all things” which means he believed we need to take our morals from our own consciences and not let a source of authority tell us what is right or wrong. Cultural relativism is the theory that because of the diverse range of cultures and customs in the world means that morality cannot be absolute. The anthropologist William Sumner said “The right way is the way that the ancestors used and which has been handed down” which suggests that morality is entirely dependent on your upbringing and background. This theory directly opposes moral absolutism. For example, in some countries women are supposed to cover themselves in public, in others, women are allowed to wear more revealing clothes if they wish. This means
Assess whether an unequal distribution of property between individuals could be a feature of a just society
3/6/15 Assess whether an unequal distribution of property between individuals could be a feature of a just society? (50 marks) By a ‘just society’ we are referring to the principle of people getting what they deserve – or desert theory. Those such as Nozick believe that individuals have an absolute right to property of income that they themselves create; Marx outlined his belief in absolute equality; Rawls, however, is the only philosopher able to claim the middle ground and suggest a sensible solution: claiming that an unequal distribution of property can, with certain constraints, benefit the poorest in society. Nozick’s view on the distribution of property focuses on the issue of how it came about. Self-ownership of one’s own talents and abilities is key to his way of thinking. If, for example, Cristiano Ronaldo asked his football club to pay him 25p for each ticket sold, the fans being happy to pay the extra, and 400,000 people watched him play that season – then he would be £10,000,000 better off. This is perfectly just according to Nozick, since Ronaldo is using his own talents to make money; which the fans voluntarily gave to him. However, in some philosophers eyes, this would be seen as unjust is Ronaldo was allowed to keep all, or even any, of that money. Be that as it may, Nozick stated that people were ‘ends in themselves’ and any attempt to use
Assess the claim that Free Will and Determinism are compatible
Critically assess the claim that Free Will and Determinism are compatible [35] There is an important relationship between freedom and moral responsibility. I should be ready to accept the blame for the things that I freely do wrong. If I'm made to commit an immoral action, then I’m not blameworthy. If I'm forced at gunpoint to drive a getaway vehicle from a bank robbery, then it isn't my fault. Even if I'm forced at gunpoint to give money to charity, I'm not praiseworthy. Moral blame/praise can only be attributed to actions that are freely taken. Freedom is defined as the power to act, speak or think as one wishes. In general terms, Determinism is the view that all events and actions in the universe are the effects of other causes. Hard determinism relies heavily on the credence that as we are not free at all to act in a different way, we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. As Aristotle maintained, "nothing happens without a reason". Honderich develops on this but relies on principles of Physics, namely Quantum Physics, to argue that determinism is much more complex - for instance, people may migrate across the planet and undergo profound social changes, yet their values dont seem to alter. Clarence Darrow, A hard determinist lawyer, successfully defended Loeb and Leopold for murder and cleared them of the death sentence. His plea was that they were indeed
Business Ethics
Business ethics is the study of business situations, activities, and decisions where issues of right and wrong are addressed. It is worth that stressing that by 'right' and 'wrong' we mean morally right and wrong. For example commercially, strategically, or financially right or wrong. Moreover, by business ethics, we do not mean only commercial business, but also government organization, pressure groups, not-for-profit businesses, charities and other organization. Business ethics has been claim as an Oxymoron. By an oxymoron, it mean that bringing together of two apparently contradictory concepts, such as in 'a cheerful pessimist' to say that business ethics is an oxymoron suggests that there are not or cannot be ethics in business which state that business is some way unethical such as business that is inherently bad, or that it is at best amoral which are such as outside of our normal moral considerations. Examples are such as in the latter case, Albert Carr (1968) notoriously argued in the article 'is business bluffing ethical' that the game of business was not subject to the same moral standards as the rest of society, but should be regarded as analogous to a game of poker where deception and lying were perfectly permissible. Business ethics is currently a very prominent business topic, and the debates and dilemmas surrounding business ethics have tended to attract an
Kant and the Categorical Imperative
Kant and the Categorical Imperative a) Duty should be done simply because it is duty. Explain how Kant analysed this concept. Kant aimed to create a theory of ethics that relied not on emotion but reason and could be universally applied and not obscured by religion or person experience. To do this he created two fundamental rules of ethics; that if an action can be universalised and have good effects then it is moral, and that the morality of an action cannot be based on the consequences of an outcome. The best example to use and one that Kant used himself is lying. Kant analysed the concept of lying based on these rules. If the action of lying was universalised so that everybody did it then it would have a bad effect as no one could trust what anyone was saying, therefore it is immoral and must not be done. Some people argue that the consequences of lying justifies the action of lying; that the end justifies the means. For example if to save someone's life you must tell a lie then is acceptable to lie. However according to Kant the consequences of an action offers no guide as to whether or not that action is moral and that a moral action is an end in itself and not a means, therefore lying is always immoral regardless of the possible outcomes. Kant also noted that people are aware of a moral law at work within them. He did not regard this consciousness as a vague
Moral Relativism
A) Explain the main characteristics of Moral Relativism. The theory of Moral Relativism suggests that no principle or value is completely right or wrong; it depends on the circumstances such as the particular society in which one lives in. This proves to be a problem when discovering the actual truth as people begin to think that the truth relies on who maintains it or that the only truth is their own. This can lead to truth having no significance because everything depends on the society to which one belongs to. This ideology originates from Ancient Greece at the time of Homer (8th century BCE). People within Greek society began to come across different ideas if what it meant to be moral. They questioned their own absolutist ideals, resulting in the discussions of the Sophists, a group of wise men, who disputed that all morality was relative - what was right and wrong was different within every society. A Greek philosopher, Protagoras proposes that people's main focus in life was to just get on with it; he says "Man is the measure of all things". All they wanted was to fit in with their own community; the 'truth' was an inconsistent and unpredictable idea. Protagoras said that nothing is absolutely right or wrong and that each person is their own final point of authority when making decisions. Moral Relativism is also subjective, meaning that a person's values are
Reason and Emotion
Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions? Reason and emotions are different aspects of the justification of moral decision. According to me reason has to do with logical thinking, and we use reason as a declaration to explain or justify our actions and decisions. Emotion on the other hand is more chaotic. It is a mental state that arises spontaneously based of feelings. But are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions? Well if moral decisions were exclusively based on reason they would be very logical. Whereas emotions often tend to cloud judgement and hinder an objective view. However we are all human beings and cannot separate our rational and emotional mind which means that both reason and emotion are necessary. Using my knowledge and reason concerning the question, I have asked myself if we do act in the same way in a familiar situation as in an unfamiliar situation. And I believe that if we let a specific number of persons face the same situation, some might be familiar to the situation and some might not, some might act emotionally and some might act reasonable, because we all have different valuations, experiences, prejudices, and knowledge about different areas of knowledge which affect our actions. In other words does context, personal moral beliefs and pre-knowledge play an important role to how we justify