who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law.
According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable. However, if value realism is correct, then our epistemic access to value is much more puzzling. In Hill’s view, Kant does find moral knowledge puzzling and holds that epistemology is compatible with realism. Kant appears to claim that
…show more content…
To provide an answer, consider this scenario: I have an over-abundance of resources and my neighbor is about to die from starvation due to his poverty. I am fully aware of my neighbor’s suffering and of the steady decline of my food resources. According to the narrow formal impartiality stance, which considers moral law as equivalent to logical coherency, I am not required to act to meet my neighbor’s need especially if I do not intend to accept charity in the future; this position appears completely rational. But what reason could I have for not feeding my neighbor? My reason cannot be a mere logical consistency, for if I am, indeed, indifferent about everything I would also be indifferent about relinquishing some of my wealth to feed my neighbor. Let us assume, then, that I am specifically indifferent about by neighbor’s suffering. In reality, even though I know that I could prevent my neighbor’s suffering by giving him some of my surplus, my real attitude is that I prefer holding on to my surplus rather than acting to save my neighbor from starvation. It is irrelevant whether his life has no value or is of minimal value to me. In neglecting to feed my neighbor, I show that I am partial to sustaining my over-abundance when compared with his …show more content…
However, as Fairbanks argues equal concern for all would ultimately destroy the self:
The impartiality requires moral agents…focus on categorical uniformities rather than face up to the particular reality of each person involved. It becomes all too easy for the agent to ignore a particular person’s pain or loss. The impartial moral agent no longer hears the cries, perceives the tears, or acknowledges the injustice and harm done to others because her eyes are firmly fixed on impartial principles; simply, the impartial moral agent becomes a moral monster.
With regard to these controversies, Kant seems to advocate that the members of the moral community are to set aside their personal interests in consideration of the principles that should govern the moral community. For example, suppose that our community decides to ban the right to own and hold private food supplies in order to achieve the common good of eliminating hunger. As a result, everyone would be allowed to enter any household and eat whatever they need. This and other like moral quandaries raise the issue of how to morally balance the ultimate needs of humanity or community ends with private ends. Paul Guyer explains the possible systematic connection of these two seemingly competing
In America, citizens are granted their own individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine if one's own personal liberty no longer existed due to the fact that their only concern was the betterment of their society. One's self worth was no longer determined from within, but by one's peers. Many believe that the solution to the selfishness which plagues society is Altruism.
In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer condemns the inactivity of affluent countries in aiding East Bengali refugees. Building on the discussion of famine relief, he moves to argue for his major contention, which is the altering of moral conceptual scheme so that affluent countries become morally obliged to assist needy regions, thereby eliminating inequality (Akintayo, 2013). This essay will first identify major arguments in support of the contention. It then applies the framework of critical thinking to evaluate each argument and culminate in reflecting on the previous analysis.
(Singer, 1972, p. 235) This could end up with humanity missing out on revolutionary improvements in human knowledge and impede the betterment of civilisation. However, this does not imply that people are morally permitted not to contribute to famine relief, and does not imply that people are only obligated to
In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging. Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972).
There are various forms of moral realism that maintain different things, all agreeing and disagreeing upon different things. However, one generally agreed feature is that moral claims assert facts, if these facts are true, then the moral claim is also true, in other words there are mind-independent facts about right and wrong. In light of brevity, this is the feature I will be referring to when speaking of moral realism. Throughout my essay I shall explain the negative implications of Streets argument on Moral realist theory and shall outline why it may be the case that realists are not necessarily committed to accepting the critiques. I aim to reach the conclusion that Streets criticism of moral realism does not stand and so despite the proposed Darwinian Dilemma Moral realism is still plausible, but one would be required to explore various other criticisms to reach a definite conclusion regarding the plausibility of Moral Realism.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
Where our choices should include everyone, as universal to be considered moral or immoral. His choice would be based on the common sense rather than what one feels on the time on having to choose. Kant believes in continuacion of life, where maintaining life is a moral action. In Rescue I we have to see who really is in danger, where all 6 people are in danger, how can you morally save five and kill one. We will have to follow one of the two wills which are autonomous: morality of respect to us having free will and heteronomous: respecting others morality.
All people are given the numbing safety of having no talents, no favoritism, and no ego. “Preach Selflessness. Tell a man that he must live for others. ”(The Soul of a Collectivist) By being one and the same, everyone is promised a sense of equality, something mankind fights over relentlessly.
Selfishness and selflessness can be balanced, and this balance is crucial to a functioning
Ross’s moral theory can be thought of as a compromise between utilitarianism and Kantianiasm. Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of: 1.
The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from
Moral realism is the common belief that there are objective moral values. David Brink states that a “fairly clear core element in moral realism” is that “(1) there are moral facts or truths, and (2) these facts or truths are independent of the evidence for them”. (1) and (2) are not sufficient conditions for all forms of moral realism, according to Brink, but he believes they are necessary, so rejecting them means rejecting moral realism. This is what JL Mackie intends to do in his arguments from queerness and relativity. The argument from queerness is more convincing than the argument from relativity, but
Consequential Ethical theory It is a part of normative ethical theories and it means that the consequence of ones behavior is an ultimate mean for anyone to judge the rightness or wrongness of that behavior. So, from the perspective of a consequentialist an ethically right act is the one that will inherit good outcome or consequence. It usually explains the saying “the end justifies the means” which means that in order to achieve a goal, take any route which leads to achieving it.
In other words, if a person acts only out of duty and not self-interest, their action is morally justifiable regardless of what the consequence may be. As you can see, this belief is different from the utilitarian who mainly focuses on the end result of an act or the consequences of the
According to Immanuel Kant, every human rational human being has dignity, “an intrinsic worth, i.e., dignity” which makes them valuable, “above all price” (Rachel,1986). Kant thinks every individual has dignity on their own perspective. Human beings allowed to choose their own act that they have dignity. Kant thinks every human being has dignity because they are rational beings, able to make their own decisions and set their own goals and guiding their conduct by reason. Because moral law is the law of reason, rational beings are the embodiment of the moral law itself.