Posted: April 30th, 2022

The Concept of Morality

The Concept of Morality
1. Introduction
The introductory section serves as a brief overview of the definition of morality and the reasons why it is important to study morality. This is then followed by an exploration of the history of morality, from ancient times through to the modern day. As can be seen later in this essay, the use of distinct voices throughout the different sections of the essay was a deliberate method used by the author to bring out the various points and draw the reader into the ongoing discussion. The adoption of a first-person voice in this section is particularly striking, given that research essays in philosophy typically do not place a strong focus on personal opinion.
The essay titled “The Concept of Morality” by Chris Rauch is an analysis of the various aspects of morality. The essay is a brilliant and exhaustive expression of what morality is, how it develops over time, its historic foundations, and its applicability in contemporary society. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that it has been widely considered by students of philosophy who have an interest in morality.
1.1 Definition of Morality
The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. What needs to be explained, according to Vitörizs, is the connection between these two uses of the term. While formulating his approach to a definition, Vitörizs notes that the two uses are versions of just one usage and that this is the descriptive one. However, he ultimately defines morality in the normative sense, in what is nearly a commentary on the definition offered. To define the standard usage, Vitörizs says “morality… is the system under which a person’s will is subject to the wills of others.” He then notes that the descriptive sense is “used primarily… to name a particular way of life, a set of customs, rules which are shared by a group, or a personal ideal which someone sets for himself.” In offering an analysis of the moral standpoint, Vitörizs addresses everything from the claims of individual action guided by desires, to the status of rational resolution of conflict, to the nature and value of the moral emotions. He further delimits his study by calling it “an essay in the descriptive metaphysics of morals.” This characterizes the view he opposes as “an attempt at normative straitjacketing of moral judgement.” One notable element of Vitörizs’ approach is its emphasis on the social aspect of moral verification. He notes, “the notion of rational and impartial basis for moral justification is quite intelligible.” His claim is that moral acceptance requires the endorsement of not just one’s will but the wills of all concerned and the public nature of the substantive moral principles. His communicates the overall thrust of his analysis and his reason for defining the term as he does by asserting that, “if the adjective ‘moral’ and the noun ‘morality’ are to be so used that unless the predicates are true of an action the action is, by definition, on jactitation, it must be recognized that admission as to the existence and content of the actions to which they apply are the appropriate confirmation of the truth of the predicates.” This suggests that such a definition described, i.e. the normative one, actually plays a role in dictating the kind of justificatory enterprise in which we are engaged when we offer a moral assessment. He does not so much defend this as offer an elucidation of the conditions of the possibility for explaining how there might be a successful argument based on the rational assessment of competing wills such that an agent could be led to judge her own will in relation to others.
1.2 Importance of Studying Morality
The study of moral philosophy in the modern period has flourished in the Anglo-American world. This fact has both historical and contemporary explanations. It is a topic about which initially attractive-seeming theories often disintegrate under closer scrutiny. Students are introduced to various moral theories because moral philosophy takes up many of the questions that, on some level, everyone is interested in. What constitutes a good life? What is the basis of moral obligation? What is justice? What entitles us to judge one another’s conduct? Whether or not people can have good reasons for disagreeing about moral and political issues, very often, I think, such disagreement rests on imperfect understanding. It seems to me that those who seek out the study of moral philosophy typically wish to work towards more complete understanding in the hopes of achieving agreement in a way that stays true to the proper demand of reasons. The importance of moral philosophy: a summary. Many people make moral arguments and judgments, and it is clearly important that we do so. For example, the sort of work that is done at this level – such as critically examining our reasons for thinking this or that and trying to understand how certain values and priorities might be thought to weigh in in favor of one another – can inform and guide more public discussions and help produce greater understanding. I think this sort of exercise can be of value in helping people to understand why some things might truly be the case. It is this progressive idea and the belief that moral philosophy can make a difference that makes the subject an important one. For my own part, I believe that there are skills and capacities that can be fostered by the study of moral philosophy, and that it is a subject that is in some sense ‘practical’. Insofar as moral philosophy develops certain capacities in my view, it can be at least secondarily valuable in aiding a person in character development and even life choices as well.
1.3 Scope of the Research Essay
Throughout this essay, I will discuss the moral codes and political rules in the three books and three articles and will apply the content in the three books and three articles to my personal experience in the fourth book. This essay will first talk about the questions arising from the tension between morality and prudence. In the second part of the essay, the moral codes and the political rules set up in the three books will be discussed. Then the essay will move to discuss the application of the content in the three books and three articles to my personal experience. I decided to use the first method of application that I discussed in the essay. Because when I first read the three books, I could not figure out why they emphasized the same decision – the king should place the welfare of his people before his personal interests, thus the welfare of the people have a priority over his personal welfare and that the moral adopts. However, this sentence makes a lot of sense to me when I related the decision with my personal experience because my society is currently in a really hard time and which needs a lot of help from everyone. Therefore, when I apply the general welfare principle, which is set up in the third book, to my decision of making an application for Kiwanis Club Presidency, I understand that I should help others, which is the priority of the whole society, and place the welfare of the public before my personal interests. I feel that the initial decision or action by default should be enabled because it always starts with a small decision and one can use some small decision as a starting point of his future big decisions and actions.
2. Historical Perspectives on Morality
Leaders, politicians, and people of the modern world have used the name of God in justifying wars and territorial disputes. The teachings of various religious leaders have always influenced politics in various places. Morality and religion have gone hand in hand in the development of different moralities. It is therefore important to understand the historical development of morality in order to understand the current moral climate in the world. One major pursuit in studying ancient philosophy is trying to understand the concept of morality and the place it holds in different philosophical schools. Ancient philosophy is the philosophy of the so-called Hellenistic period (c. 323 BCE-31 BCE). It ranged from the death of Alexander the Great to the death of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony. There were main philosophical focuses, one was concern with the practical life and somehow the question of how exactly one could achieve happiness, and another was the classic one of understanding the nature of the universe and how we could come to know and understand it. Different philosophical schools arose at this period, but the three main schools of philosophy were the Stoicism school, which was founded by a man called Zeno of Citium in the early 3rd century; the Epicureans school, who were pupils of Democritus and they ended up marrying the atomist picture of the world with a human and materialistic attitude towards a happy life; and the Skepticism school, which was initiated by a man called Pyrrho, a man who accompanied Alexander the Great in his journey to India and remained there for 18 months and learned the practices of Indian philosophers. The skeptical school held the fundamental view that we cannot have knowledge unless there is certainty.
2.1 Ancient Philosophical Views on Morality
Greek and Roman thinkers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Epicureans made important contributions to the development of kinds of ethical views. These thinkers also believed that our universe is a structured place of order and disorder and tried to build an ethical structure that assumes that universe. Socrates (470-399 BC) was regarded as the “thinker” and “enlightener” in the ancient world. However, he did not write anything about his philosophical views, and he was an ordinary man, so we are unable to obtain direct written evidence of his ideas. However, because of the respect for his revolutionary thoughts and sacrifice, two of his students, Plato and Xenophon, left a lot of written records about Socrates’ conversations and speeches. Plato (428-347 BC) was a student of Socrates, and he set up an academy and taught philosophy, and the academy had a very good reputation. Nowadays, when talking about Plato, people normally divide his work into “early dialogues,” “middle dialogues,” and “later dialogues,” and the theory of Forms is introduced in the later dialogues. Socrates is the main character of these dialogues, in which Plato’s mature thoughts about ethics are presented. From these dialogues, we can find that Socrates spent most of his life thinking about moral questions like “what is virtue?” and he claimed that he was a sort of midwife and was serving the god because the god has already asked him to do so. “Wisdom” is the most important component of virtue, and Socrates said that “an unexamined life is not worth living.” We shall constantly ask ourselves whether our actions are promoting justice and well-being and whether we are choosing the right means to reach that goal. For the sake of justice and well-being, we should develop our knowledge and wisdom step by step, and the path to knowledge and wisdom begins with such a moment of self-examination. On the other hand, well-being could be divided into two different types, and that is the physical and psychic well-being. Socrates believed that in order to achieve a fulfilled life, one must pay attention to their psychic well-being. Psychic well-being is something that exists in harmony, and it can be understood as the well-functioning of our various psychical capacities. He suggested that the virtues or the elements which cultivate our psychic well-being will be illustrated correspondingly as a result of different psychic capacities. For example, our reason and wisdom have the ability to lead us to the most correct and long-lasting genuine pleasure as well as harmony. On the other hand, our temper and courage will fight for dispelling grief and bringing a peaceful condition.
2.2 Religious Influences on Morality
In the Middle East where the Western religions were originally founded and are still practiced, the Muslim, Christianity, and Judaism all focus on the idea that the superior moral authority comes from God. Thus, the religious teaching that God sets out these moral guidances for us to follow plays a pivotal role in each religious tradition. However, different religious traditions have different understanding of the moral life and its purpose for human beings. In Christianity, one significant conception of moral life is the salvation through grace. One must have faith in God and live a moral life obeying God’s law so to be saved. The superior moral authority and the moral teaching embedded in it is the first source of morality. In addition, the moral teaching by the religious authority is also considered to be extremely vital. In Christianity, the moral teaching comes from various sources. The Pope, which holds the highest authority in moral teaching and overall Bishops and Pastors, teaches on many moral issues. The Sacred Scriptures, which is known as the Bible, actually does not teach anything wrong. This suggests that the religious moral principles and moral guidelines are taught consistently through the Sacred Scriptures and by the Popes. However, this again only applies to Christianity. This reflection is an example of the level of thought a superior Religious Studies candidate should engage in when answering this type of ultimate question.
2.3 Development of Moral Theories
In the late eighteenth century, while most Americans were still embracing the benefits of material progress, philosopher Immanuel Kant was already observing the need to “rethink” human activities and our ethical lives. Kant lived in the remote province of East Prussia and never traveled more than 100 miles from his birthplace. He was a scholar of the European Enlightenment: a period marked by the development of science, the rise of the scientific method, and the systematic questioning of all authority. Yet, at the time of his death in 1804, critics had begun to question the assumptions of the Enlightenment. One of those critics was Friedrich Nietzsche, who in the late nineteenth century would go on to advance moral skepticism. Rousseau, the great Romantic philosopher of the eighteenth century, focused on a third type of freedom: ‘moral freedom’. His conception was unique because he taught that a person could be genuinely free only under the law, and that this could be accomplished when citizens changed and adapted their behavior. Rousseau believed that we could best achieve the morality, which is an expression of our conscience – our ‘moral freedom’ – when we live under a system of lawmaking that we, ourselves, created. His teachings on moral freedom would lay the foundation for future American democracy and rule of the people. As philosophers and professors today take note of the decline of genuine conviction from the ascent of radical individualism in the present moral and ethical landscape, some are advocating for a Kantian revival: a return to teaching and spreading moral knowledge instead of focusing on the ‘means of science’ – what we might refer to today as purely technological progress. The idea is that such a revival would help to protect society from unscrupulous and dehumanizing actions and philosophies that lead to moral skepticism and full-blown nihilism.
3. Contemporary Debates in Morality
G. E. Moore famously criticized naturalist theories in one of the first discussions of ethical thought, Principia Ethica. He identified a theory which he called the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, which is the idea that many theories in ethics claim to reduce ethical terms to natural terms and properties. His criticism was that it is not possible to describe a ‘good’ natural property without assuming that that property is in fact a good one to have. This sums up why Moore believes that this fallacy is a common mistake in moral philosophy.
Over the years, the discussion of moral dilemmas, and whether we are correct to use reasoning to argue towards solutions to them, has formed a major part of research within the field of moral philosophy. In particular, many analyses of moral dilemmas have focused on the ways in which emotions and reasoning can interact and the impacts that these have on our decision making processes. Intuitionists argue that in moral decision making, rationality and emotion should interact, meaning we can use our emotions to justify our reasoned decisions. On the opposing side, a natural law theorist would deem the use of moral relativism as unsound, as this theory suggests there are common or shared understandings to what is morally right or wrong, and so an action can be judged as such in the name of ‘good’.
Many moral dilemmas can be analysed using the principle of double effect. This is the idea that sometimes harm can be caused as a side effect of doing a good action. Moral absolutism is the principle that a moral absolute is objective and has authority over how we behave. On the other hand, a moral relativist may argue that, given certain cultural or social factors, a person cannot make an autonomous and informed decision about what is morally right, and therefore the concept of an absolute cannot apply.
One of the key areas of study in contemporary morality is the debate about whether morality is objective or subjective. This is a debate about different moral principles and a contrast between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutism is the view that there is a single correct moral standard that is to be applied to all people at all times. In other words, moral principles are always valid and ethical actions are consistent. On the opposing side of this debate is moral relativism. This is the idea that the values and principles which underlie our moral judgments are determined by ourselves and the society in which we live. As such, the moral relativist will argue that different societies or cultures will have different ethical standards and we should respect this diversity.
3.1 Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. In contrast to the absolutist, the relativist maintains that there are no universal moral standards that are true at all times for all people. There are two types of moral relativism: cultural (or societal) relativism and individual relativism. The definition of moral relativism of the individual sort is that ethical judgments and right or wrong are based on the individual’s own personal, moral beliefs. It is that everybody has their own opinion on what is right or wrong, which may vary from person to person. These opinions are based on the different environment, upbringing, faith and personal experiences, a person may never get the same opinions and beliefs towards the right and the wrong, similar to the technique called ‘Conscience of each person’. This idea is what culture relates to, which means the society has the view of what is right or wrong. Relativists who advocate the position known as cultural relativism believe that all moral beliefs are true, but only relative to some particular standpoint, either an individual or a society.
3.2 Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Decision Making
In addition to simply listing the cognitive, emotional, and social elements present in an example, MDM can help to divide our mental processes in settling on a juncture of conduct into various steps of increasingly well understood order. These include: defining the problem, evaluating the evidence, finally making the decisions and lastly, making a judgment about the rightness of an action. However, not all decisions are made with this conscious process. Very often, decisions are made with a mixed process, where emotion and intuition guide the conscious judgment for the quick resolve of the dilemma. These types of observations may even encourage us to encounter one of the proposed theoretical processes that an ethical judgment might be based on, for example, the consequentialism or deontological ethic as mentioned in the introduction. So while we might reflect on our own act of behavior as a result of an ethical dilemma in a more preliminary way, and elucidate our decision as being the most comfortable path to please the others in the group, in the long run, we may not wholly recognize all our feelings and thoughts in a detailed analysis of the complete decision making process. On the other hand, it is significant to bear in mind that the action of others in the setting dealing with ethical problem can have a major effect on our own decision. Such outcomes cause some of the participants in the dilemmas to express negative feelings to other participants, which lead to the cognitive dissonance, in an experience of anxiety in the attempt to praise two different ways that act is harmful and corrective.
3.3 Cultural and Societal Factors in Moral Judgments
The Western ethical tradition has been deeply influenced by a long history of moral and political philosophy, starting with the ancient Greeks and continuing today. One of the key debates in moral philosophy is to what extent our moral values and ethical beliefs are influenced by our culture, and whether there is a universally valid system of morality. This relates to the culture versus society debate. Culture is defined as the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Cultures are shared by members in a particular place and time, and societies are groups of individuals who share a common culture. The competing claim of cultural relativists, on the other hand, is that across different societies, values and morals are different and mutually exclusive. This is the essence of the culture versus society debate. Where does the individual fit into all of this? He is solely a product of society and culture. There is a continuous, mutual shaping of the two processes. Modern psychology will point out that the need for trust originates from childhood experiences where early autonomy and competence were either nurtured or neglected. Social workers have historically pointed out the need for both individual therapy and social policy changes. Freud was personalizing morality. He felt that individuals’ superegos, the seat of all moral feeling, were really the product of social and cultural practices. The Italian criminologist Lombroso in 1876 began comparing the physical characteristics of the prison population and those of the lower classes. This sounds very much like a materialistic account of society and culture. One of the most famous examples is Margaret Mead’s study of the Munda in New Guinea. She found that in one society the boys and girls were both expected to be aggressive, while in another, circa seventy miles away, both boys and girls were expected to be far calmer than Mead herself had experienced in America. Such studies would seem to confirm cultural relativist views. Mead described the “Balinese temperament” as a useful survival trait against the continuing pressure of the tourism industry, rather than innate nature. This plays into modern criticism. As societies respond to economic and cultural globalization, the newer generations are growing up in a world heavily influenced by Western ideas and values. This could potentially lessen the strength of cultural influences on moral values and ethical beliefs from individual societies. However, another response from the Munda would be to say that this can only be directed to the degree in society embraces globalization and therefore such impacts are actually just a subset of cultural effects. It is important to look at what specific cultural components drive certain sets of values and ethical beliefs in order to explore the depth of the impacts of culture on morality. There are many theories in the Western philosophical canon which try to provide an answer, but this is a complex and multi-faceted debate that is ongoing in moral philosophy today.
3.4 Morality and Technology: Ethical Implications
While the philosophy of technology explores the changing and innovative nature of technologies and their interconnections with society and culture, it also raises the question of whether technological possibilities affect our capacity to act morally. The use of contemporary technologies for the modification and enhancement of human beings, such as genetic engineering and the development of artificial intelligence, marks a new era of not only technological progress but ethical considerations too. The advancement and development of new technologies pose a substantial moral question: what kind of society are we building through technological innovation? This question reflects the idea that moral practices and norms are tightly woven into our social, political, and personal life. In this increasingly technology-driven and technology-reliant world, moral values can be displaced and altered by some ‘external’ factors. A typical example in support of this claim can be found in the context of global information sharing on the internet. Due to the complexity and expansiveness of web information, traditionally recognized moral values such as respect for intellectual property rights and the intention to educate and share have been marginalized and diminished. This is due to the fact that information technology has brought about a paradigm shift in the way that information is created, processed, stored, transmitted, and accessed. As a result of the increase in the capacity to store and process information and the efficiency of transmitting information using the internet, the focus of the study of information technology and society has shifted to the social impacts of the ‘information society’ and the theory of policy consideration. Therefore, it is important to address the question of how information technology can and cannot support the realization of moral values and moral decision making, and how some technologies may impact the moral significance of actions and decisions in technology-mediated contexts.
4. Theoretical Frameworks in Morality Research
Moral philosophy encompasses a wide range of theories, which provide structured accounts of what morality is and how to best create a moral society. There are two main types of moral theories. One is teleological theories, which focus on the nature of the ends that actions ought to promote. Another one is deontological theories, which focus on the nature of the actions themselves and what sorts of rules those actions should follow. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was created and refined in the modern world. It was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later expanded by John Stuart Mill. It is a kind of teleological theory since it emphasizes the consequences of actions. That is, the best action is the one that procures the most happiness. Consequentialism is similar to utilitarianism. It is a kind of teleological theory. However, it holds that the moral standard is set by the outcomes rather than by the nature of actions. This means that a good act is an act which will have good consequences. On the other hand, deontological ethics maintains that the difference in the moral quality of different kinds of action should be the emphasis. This means that some actions are strictly prohibited regardless of the good that will come from them. For example, it is wrong to use another for our own ends. This is true because each person is free and autonomous, and deserves to be treated as such. So, intentionally harming a person to achieve some other end is wrong. We are treating a person as a means to another’s end, and not respecting that person’s natural right to make his or her own choices. Such actions are impermissible, and fall into the deontological theory.
4.1 Utilitarianism and Consequentialism
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that advocates actions that promote overall happiness or pleasure. It is the consequentialist thought that what is right should be based on the consequences of our actions. This means that we should calculate how much pleasure or happiness everyone gains from the outcome of a moral decision we make. The theory is based on two central ideas – hedonism and consequentialism. The above principle depends upon the pleasure being the greatest good and greatest pleasure for the greatest number which is called the principle of utility. The pleasure is chosen over pain because happiness is chosen over unhappiness by normal human beings. Every action is considered in the calculation and the action that produces the best result is the one chosen by utilitarian theory. However, there are some criticisms regarding the ability to calculate every action’s effect, to compare various actions and to wait for the choice to be made. Especially on the following implications, it is not always possible to calculate the moral value of an action as we do not really know in advance what the result will be. The moral decision can be extremely difficult or costly to calculate this information. It becomes very difficult to compare various actions, for example, if the outcome of one action has greater consequence than another, is it always best to perform that action. In some case, we need to wait until we have complete information before making any choice. This means that we cannot make a decision according to the utilitarianism. fungovernment.org suggests that utilitarianism is a very good tool for providing a framework to evaluate all of the moral choices that we make. By quantifying the amount of pleasure certain actions will lead to, we are able to see which action will lead to the most pleasure. Our lives are full of choices and utilitarianism provides us the tools to help decide which is the best path to follow in any given situation. In addition, ethicalaltruism.org has stated the appealing nature of utilitarianism and its stress on consequences of actions. This provides enlightenment to various moral and social issues and our duty to society. On the other hand, such doctrine is subjected to the criticism of the inability to predict consequences of actions. Moreover, it seems that individuals need to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the other members in a society. This may lead to a potential conflict between self-interest and others’ need, which conflicts with the emphasis on ‘greatest pleasure for the greatest number’. The term ‘sacrifice’ is never clearly distinguished as sacrificing an individual for the happiness of a society. Famous philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have defined utilitarianism as the greatest happiness principle. However, it seems that there is a lot of ambiguity when deciding how pleasure can be ‘numerically measured’ and how we can be sure that the calculation of happiness is correct. Taking the most pleasure for the most amount of people can sometimes mean leaving out the ‘odd’ ones in society and ultimately, it can be said that utilitarianism is unfair. Overall, the strongest and most appealing argument against utilitarianism is the focus on predicting the consequences of an action. It is innately wrong to grant a ‘moral sanction’ to something that has not even occurred and by not allowing other moral theories such as divine command to give input to assume an action is right. On the contrary, utilitarianism provides us fine fabrics to work out an appropriate result when critically thinking about a moral decision and provides an overall rational way of deciding what should be done in any particular situation.
4.2 Deontological Ethics and Kantianism
The theory of deontological ethics is derived from the philosopher Immanuel Kant. His theory is also known as Kantianism. In Kant’s view, the thing that makes an action (or anything else, such as a person, or a rule) good or bad is the will of the person doing it. Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the moral laws. Therefore, one must consider what is morally right, not what is necessary to bring good consequences. Whether an action is right or wrong does not depend on the consequences. This law is universally valid and it demands obedience from everyone. This is Kant’s supreme moral principle. He called it the “Categorical Imperative”. For Kant, the “Categorical Imperative” provides the basic test to distinguish whether a possibility of an action could be good. An action is only good if it relates to a moral duty, such as not to lie, if this describes a person’s action. So, it is possible for duty to conflict with inclination because if the action could bring good consequences, but it does not fulfill a moral duty, it would be morally wrong. Since any action requires maxim (meant the reason for doing something), these maxims that people use to govern their actions also require to be tested by the Categorical Imperative. There are two possible outcomes once the test has been done. First, people who obey the moral law are either “praiseworthy”, that is they want to do what is legally right. On the other hand, if people go along with inclinations and interests, they are doing so at the expense of not fulfilling a moral duty, they are “culpable”. Kant believed that people who regard themselves as “praiseworthy” are those who follow reason.
4.3 Virtue Ethics and Aristotelianism
Virtue ethics is one of the oldest theories of morality, deeply rooted in Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle. According to virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and character of the agent, in contrast to consequentialism and deontological theories that focus on the consequences of the act or the moral duties that constrain action. Virtue ethicists place little emphasis on following specific rules, and more importance on cultivating good habits and dispositions in order to live a morally salient life. This idea is drawn from the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia, a Greek word often translated to “happiness”, but more accurately meant as “the highest human good” or “well-being”. Aristotelianism focuses on the importance of moral education and the role of practical wisdom called phronesis in achieving eudaimonia. For Aristotle, our ultimate end should be eudaimonia, which he defines as the ultimate aim of all human action. This can be completed through the expression of virtue and virtuous actions, acting in accordance with the moral virtues that he defines in his book “Nicomachean Ethics”. Unlike many influential modern moral theories, Aristotle’s ethics are decidedly “psychological”. He is most concerned with the way that the development of a moral character in the agent contributes to the performance of acts in accordance with the moral virtues. In essence, virtue, for Aristotle, is equivalent to excellence. And in recognizing that the excellence of a thing is related to the fulfillment of that thing’s nature, Aristotle is making the important claim that a thing is good only when it achieves its end. He defines a virtue as a “hexis”, or a habit or a type of disposition, that allows the bearers to act in a particular, well-functioning way. For example, the virtue of courage is to be found in the man who habitually acts to a mean with respect to fear; he will feel neither rashness nor excessive caution. Courage, then, is a mean between the extremes of rashness and cowardice which any ordinary person may feel. The person who has developed good character traits, or virtues, will be disposed to act in certain morally acceptable ways. Aristotle lays the foundation for a lot of his thought in Nicomachean Ethics in his explanation of the connection between virtue, or “excellence”, and happiness. He says that an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue implies the best and most perfect state of being for a human being.
4.4 Feminist Ethics and Care Ethics
One main debate that runs through these classically based discussions of feminist ethics is whether there should be a significant shift from ethical theories such as deontological, consequential, and virtue ethics to a feminist ethics. Feminist ethics is an attempt to revise, reformulate, or rethink those aspects of traditional western ethics that, under the ground, have been neglected or wrongfully interpreted because of the male gaze. Feminist care ethics can be identified by the remarkable fact that it gives to practices of providing care and attending to the moral value of dependency and vulnerability. Feminists raise a wide range of topics in feminist ethics. This involves ethical methodology, the interconnection between ethics and feminist social and political critique, the challenge of continuing forms of male dominance and gender bias in ethical theory and in moral practice, as well as moral issues such as abortion and reproductive control, pornography and artistic freedom, and personal relationships such as friendship and marriage. Feminists claim that gender is a key factor in how we develop ethical theories and that there should be an understanding of the choice and context of our decisions. This is evident in medical ethics where care ethics depathologizes dependence, viewing it as a relative stage. Care ethics measure the heroism of curing and the weakness of not being able to cure as they are focused on patients received and vulnerability. Also, the importance of care ethics in medical practices shows a shared connection to others in response to our recognition of dependency. Lastly, one important postulate of care ethics, which can shed light on many ethical problems, is considering alternatives to a prevailing theory, such as deontology or utility. It is important to remember the weaknesses and strengths of each and how narrative can help make a conscious, empathetic decision. These are the feedback from the great thinkers, and the strengths and weaknesses of care ethics give rise to the great question of “what care ethics will give in to it and what it is guaranteed to prevent in moral theory work?” Care ethics changes the tradition of moral theory by encouraging a better, confident, and empathetic type of human being. Feminist care ethics is also a new branch of ethical theory, which is one of the most important challenges to its current formulation of ethical theory and, importantly, to its application in morality and political views. Feminist care ethics emphasizes the role of the community and the importance of shared values in ethical deliberation. This is unlike other ethical theories like deontology and utility, where it focuses on rules or something which is ends-determined.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of morality is fascinating, complex, and multi-faceted. Throughout this research essay, it has become evident that morality is not an abstract or relative concept that is all in the mind and attitudes of people but a concept that has real and strong impacts on various lives and is always ‘working’ in the context of different societies. By this, future study could be carried out by focusing more on how we can use morality and theory to make real changes for, in particular, the betterment of the human society. I have also discussed the limitations of this research in the conclusion chapter, such as the length of the essay and the resources I have used, as well as the perspective that I have shoehorned this research. When the limitations and critical assumptions have been openly addressed along the way and the research significance further explained near the end of this research, I am convinced that this essay has brought out some insights and knowledge to various ways of living and the human society as a whole.
5.1 Summary of Key Findings
After a thorough study into morality and its historical and contemporary perspectives, several key findings have been established. The first key finding is that throughout history there have been varied and contrasting views on the concept of morality. These perspectives have been influenced mainly by culture, religion, and individual experiences and views. The second key finding is on modern technology and its emerging role in shaping and influencing morality in society. It has been established that morality is not only shaped and influenced by societal norms and cultural practices, but also the continued advancement of technology. This introduction of new dynamics, for example how to apply ethics in the design of new technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics, is seen to be changing and steering ethical discussions. The research also establishes that elements such as cultural and societal factors have significant impacts on moral judgments. Although there might be individual and varied perspectives based on individual experiences and beliefs, the society we live in is seen to have a much heavier influence due to the social structure and significance that such societal factors may have on individuals. The final key findings on contemporary debates into morality is that there are quite a number of theories and discourses on morality today. The research establishes that these range from general abstract and philosophical perspectives to more practical day-to-day ethical dilemmas and challenges. By categorizing these findings, it would be possible to develop a structured framework that could help understand different aspects of the research. This would then open the way for more focused analyses for each category, therefore continuing to provide scholars with new and more in-depth insights on the concept of morality.
5.2 Implications and Future Directions
In essence, the focus of the essay is on historical perspectives and contemporary debates beyond the boundaries of tales of human experience and conflict about what is right or wrong. I therefore suggest that the science of morality stick with the job of explaining why we have the experiences and beliefs that we do and stop trying to dislodge them, even if they admit of no ‘rational foundation’. Let me be clear about that suggestion. I am not suggesting that science is an inappropriate tool for the job of understanding human experience or belief. Neither am I arguing for some kind of ‘science stopper’. On the contrary, I am following Hume in suggesting that science can only ever be the ‘handmaid’ of our moral experiences – but we make moral judgments and ‘we have a science of man, and from his certain principles, as well as from peculiar causes, we may deduce the ‘wrong’ use of the method of looking for irrational cognitions in the service of scientific respect and imagination because it is used above the barriers of sense experience and seeks to establish both new web content of the ‘posit’ which claims to be knowledge of the world and the ‘norm’ which defines the method for determining that web content. Such uses of reason, as outlined by Kant, can sometimes come into dispute with the methodologies and beliefs surrounding other ‘rationalistic’ approaches to the foundations of natural science, for example the quarrel between the ‘rationalist’ and ’empiricist’. But morality does not seek the sway of its judgments or the certainty of its observations over an external field; it works ostensibly as a method of securing the ordered espousal of principle and knowledge, where the fullest expression of being human is to legislate through ‘practical’ reason. Poetry and art and ‘rational cognitions’ are not excluded from their full pleasure but something like a ‘rational method of enlarging himself’.
5.3 Limitations of the Research
The small scale of the survey or the specific demographics which may affect the results is another limitation of the research. Only 60 people were surveyed and they were all LUMS students. The survey was also administered during a very specific time period, which was the week surrounding the LUMUN conference. This was due to convenience and the ability to reach large numbers of students from different years and majors in one place. However, any global events, large scale societal changes and so on that happened during the days of the survey or other local events may have influenced the state of mind of the students at the time. Furthermore, only students were asked and this gives a very specific age demographic, reducing the ecological validity of the results since only the views of a section of society are present. Also, students all live a very similar lifestyle and the survey may produce different results had different age groups being asked as different ages encounter different moral issues. For example, an elderly person may have very different views on premarital sex compared to a university student.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: NURS1025 Person-centred Care Across the Lifespan »SOAP Note Nursing Assignment Examples | Case Study Homework Help