Ethics and Moral Theory Essay

The words beneficialeous and clean philosophy (and cognates) ar often used interchangeably. However, it is usable to make the following distinction worship is the system through which we do secure and wrong conduct i.e., the guide to good or mighty conduct. Ethics is the philosophical call for of honourableity.What, then, is a clean-living guess? A theory is a structured post of statements used to explain (or predict) a set of facts or concepts. A honorable theory, then, explains why a sure implement is wrong or why we ought to act in veritable ways. In short, it is a theory of how we determine right and wrong conduct. Also, moral theories provide the framework upon which we think and discuss in a well-grounded way, and so assess, specific moral issues. Seen in this light, it becomes clear that we cannot draw a sharp divide in the midst of moral theory and applied ethics (e.g., medical or business ethics).For instance, in order to critically value the moral i ssue of affirmative action, we must not attempt to evaluate what actions or policies are right (or wrong) independent of what we demand to determine right and wrong conduct. You go forth see, as we proceed, that we do not do ethics without at least some moral theory. When evaluating the merits of some decision regarding a effect, we will always (or at least ought to always) find ourselves thinking closely 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 study going one way from theory to applied issue. Sometimes a case whitethorn suggest that we need to change or sic our thinking close what moral theory we think is the best, or peradventure it might lead us to think that a preferred theory needs modification. Another important distinctionAre moral theories descriptive or prescriptive ? In presenting a moral theory, are we ripe describing how people, in their every daylight doings and thinkings, form a judgement about(predicate) 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 to sociologists and anthropologists. Philosophers, then, when they study morality, want to know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong. at that place have been many different proposals. Here is a brief summary.Theories of Morality (1) Moral Subjectivism regenerate and wrong is determined by what you the subject just happens to think (or feel) is right or wrong. In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the defence reaction of moral principles of any significant kind, and the possibility of moral reprimand and argumentation. In essence, right and wrong lose their meaning because so eagle-eyed as someone thinks or feels that some action is right, in that location are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivi st, you cannot butt to anyones behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right). This shows the key speck in moral subjectivism probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues. (2) heathenish Relativism Right and wrong is determined by the concomitant set of principles or rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. Cultural Relativism is closely 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 mistaken about what is right and wrong (which seems not to be true), and so it denies the possibility of moral advancement (which also seems not to be true). (3) Ethical Egoism Right and wrong is determined by what is in you r self-interest. Or, it is immoral to act inverse to your self-interest. Ethical Egoism is usually based upon Psychological Egoism that we, by nature, act selfishly. Ethical egoism does not imply hedonism or that we ought to armorial bearing for at least some higher goods (e.g., wisdom, political success), but alternatively that we will (ideally) act so as to maximize our self interest. This may require that we forgo some immediate pleasances for the sake of achieving some farseeing term goals. Also, ethical egoism does not exclude helping others.However, egotists will help others only if this will further their own interests. An ethical egocentric will claim that the altruist helps others only because they want to (perhaps because they derive pleasure out of helping others) or because they think there will be some personal advantage in doing so. That is, they deny the possibility of authenticated altruism (because they think we are all by nature selfish). This leads us to th e key implausibility of Ethical Egoism that the person who helps others at the spending of their self-interest is actually acting imvirtuously. 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 constrain our self-interest, not further it. Also, that honest-to-goodness altruism is indeed possible, and relatively commonly exhibited. (4) Divine take possible action Many claim that there is a necessary connection surrounded by morality and devotion, such that, without religion (in particular, without matinee idol 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 behave in morally good way, most take the claim of the necessary connection between morality and religion to mean that right and wrong come from the commands of God (or the gods). This view of morality is k nown as Divine manipulate Theory. The final result is that an action is right or obligatory if God command we do it, wrong if God commands we refrain from doing it, and morally permissible if God does not command that it not be done. Divine Command Theory is wide held to have several serious flaws.First, it presupposes that God or gods exist. Second, even if we behave that God does exist, it presupposes that we can know what God commands But even if we include theism, it looks like even theists should reject the theory. Plato raised the relevant objection 2500 old age 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 Command Theory is false.If the former, then right and wrong are just a matter of the irresponsible will of the gods (i.e., they might have willed some other, unconnected commands). Most think that right and wrong are not arbitrary that is, some action is wrong, say, 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) Virtue 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 central concern is Ethica = things to do with character. Of particular concern are excellences of character i.e., the moral virtues. Aristotle, and most of the quaint Greeks really had nothing to say about moral duty, i.e., modern day moral concepts. Rather, they were concerned with what makes human beings truly happy. True blessedness is calledEudaimonia (flourishing / well- being / fulfilment / self- actualization). Like Plato, Aristotle wants to show that t here are impersonal 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.