* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download How Actions Can Be Morally Evaluated
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Utilitarianism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Euthyphro dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup
Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Jurisprudence wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
The Morals of Chess wikipedia , lookup
Moral relativism wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Jewish ethics wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
How Actions Can Be Morally Evaluated Motive/Intention (Character) Teleological Ethics Consequences ACT Deontological Ethics Teleological Ethics: morality is the means to achieve what is identified as good or valuable Deontological Ethics: the good or valuable is doing our duty (the morally right, obligatory) Divine Command $Natural Law $Kant $Buddhism Divine Command Theory The good is whatever God commands (as identified in the Scriptures) because it is God’s command Objections: What God wills can be arbitrary Scriptures conflict and need interpretation The theory does not appeal to non-believers & lacks rational persuasiveness (circular) Natural Law Theory Epictetus Thomas Aquinas Natural Law: we should follow reason and our God-instilled inclinations (Stoics, Aquinas) Objections: inclinations sometimes conflict Reply: principle of double effect: our intention should always be to do the good Counter-replies: $natural is not always good $people differ on what is natural $even double effects are intended Kant’s Ethics (Formalism) The essential feature of morality is obligation; you are obligated only if everyone else is too; the form of moral obligation is its universality Moral obligation does not vary from person to person. It is not a hypothetical imperative (if you want Y, you ought to do X); rather, the imperative is categorical (you must do X) Your intention must be to do your duty, to act for the sake of doing your duty Kant: Objections to Consequentialism, Divine Command & Natural Law Theories If we are naturally oriented to seek happiness, we are not free and thus cannot be morally obligated to seek happiness: ought implies can Because opinions differ about what happiness is, we could never agree on moral principles Consequences are often out of our control, so we cannot be held responsible for our actions We can hold ourselves responsible only if the moral law is self-imposed (“autonomous”) Kant: The Categorical Imperative Always act only on maxims (rules) that you could will everyone universally to adopt Two tests for universalizability: Consistency: a maxim must be universalizable without contradiction Acceptability: a universalized maxim must be acceptable Objection: moral rules often conflict Kant’s Categorical Imperative (continued) Because human beings can act rationally, they can act for the sake of doing their duty; that is, they can act on the basis of a “good will” Rational beings are capable of self-obligating behavior; we should therefore treat others as ends-in-themselves, freely consenting agents Objection: humans are not simply rational Buddhist Ethics The craving for individuality (including life, pleasure, power) produces suffering— which is ended through virtue and meditation Being virtuous requires us to respect ourselves and others, and to be patient, moderate, and to maintain a clear and balanced mind Personal enlightenment consists not in merely following rules but in seeing one’s place in the universe