Reflection What Would A Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?

Satisfactory Moral Theory

Submitted by

Affiliation

Date

Philosophers working on normative ethics have come up with theories as to what kind of action is right or wrong. Theories tend to be systematic : in their light, any act or act can be ethically evaluated. The focus of the evaluation afforded by current theories of ethics is usually primarily the act or action and only secondarily the author or actor and his or her ethical status, such as goodness or evil. Ethics and morality are related to each other differently than physical theory and physics are related. Ethical theory and all thinking about morality become part of morality itself. Physics and physical theory have a different relationship. “A satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things”(Mackie, Aristotle, Saint Thomas , Hobbes, Mill, & Thomson, 2003).

According to the ethics of values, only relative good and relative values ​​exist in the world. They must be considered in order to avoid ethical chimeras. The most important types of ethics are pragmatism and utilitarianism. In accordance with the theory of pragmatism, which was developed by C. Pierce, J. Dewey and W. James, the moral good is the achievement of success, which is associated with the solution of certain problem situations. Pragmatists believe that values ​​are the result of human activity and are more confident in this than utilitarian.

According to utilitarianism, within the framework of this type of ethics of values, the most important criterion for good is the achievement of benefit, but not at all costs, but in accordance with the formula that I. Bentham has derived: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." By utility itself, I. Bentham meant pleasure in the absence of suffering.

According to Mackie, Aristotle, Saint Thomas , Hobbes, Mill, & Thomson, (2003), “the most plausible theory might be called Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism. This theory is utilitarian, because the ultimate goal is to maximize the general welfare” (Mackie, Aristotle, Saint Thomas , Hobbes, Mill, & Thomson, 2003).

Conferring Kant, the duty does not come from the outside, but comes from each of us. Common sense dictates the principle of right action, a categorical imperative. Only a person who acts according to his own law is autonomous, self-centered. (Hill, 1994).

Each of the three above areas in the framework of the philosophy of ethics has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, the ethics of virtues is focused on understanding the moral character of a particular person, the ethics of duty above all values ​​the general laws of morality, and the ethics of values ​​explores human being in the world. All three of these points are relevant today.

However, combining these areas and their strengths, as well as eliminating the shortcomings, is still an insoluble problem. All these directions are mutually exclusive, they cannot be combined into one theory. Thus, the ethical problem is different - not to combine theories that contradict each other together, but to use each of them in the situation to which it meets the greatest extent. In some cases, the ethics of virtue will be most effective, in the other, the ethics of duty, and in the third, the ethics of values. All these areas harmoniously complement each other.

The basis of any theory of ethics is questionable, just like the typical criticism of virtue ethics just presented. However, unlike its two competitors, virtue ethics may suffer from an even greater problem. In turn, theories of duty and consequence ethics, in some cases, lead to ethical conclusions that appear to be manifestly incorrect.

References

Hill, T. E. (1994). Dignity and practical reason in Kant's moral theory.

Mackie, J. L., Aristotle, Saint Thomas (Aquinas), Hobbes, T., Hume, D., Mill, J. S., ... &

Thomson, J. J. (2003). The right thing to do: Basic readings in moral philosophy. J. Rachels, & S. Rachels (Eds.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.