Introduction
This book is intended to introduce students and general readers to the branch of philosophy called 'ethics'. The author tries to present some of the standard material of ethics that beginners and others should know. This will not summary of what moral philosophers are agreed up on, as introduction to other subjects may be summarieses of what the expects in those fields agreed upon. The author William K. Franken's aim in this book is not just to introduce the problems and position of moral philosophers, but also to do moral philosophy. That is, he should try to write an essay in moral philosophy in which he looked forward some of his own views and reasoning and at the same time provide an introduction to the subject in general. In this spirit just indicated let he said something about his arguments in this book. While he gives agreements for or against a certain ethical position, he is not thinking of them as conclusive proofs and disproof's. Such conclusive proofs or disproof's are as difficult as they are as different as they are rare in philosophy.
In this book contain six chapters. First two chapters speak about morality and moral philosophy and also Egoistic Deontological Theories. In the ethical thinking Socrates is considered as the patron saint of moral philosophy. It is at the opening of the Plato's idea or dialogue. The dialogue gives us his answer to the question and a full account of his reasoning in arriving at it. In each of these agreements, Socrates appeals to a general moral rules or principles which, upon reflection, the agreement are that,
We ought never to harm anyone
We ought to give our promises
We ought to obey or respect our parents and teachers
In this book however, we shall take the moral traditional view of our subjects. We shall take ethics to include meta- ethics as just described, but as also including normative ethics or thinking of the second kind. Though only when this deal with the general questions about what is good/right or not. Deontological theories are also different kinds depending on the role they give to general rules. Act Deontological theories maintain that the basic judgments called obligations are purely particular one's like should do so and what ought to always to keep our promises are judgments. Ethical egoism is an ethical theory not a pattern of action or trial of character and is competable with being self effecting and unselfish in practice.
The second two chapters are utilitarianism, justice and love and moral value responsibility. Utilitarianism is the ultimate standard of right, wrong and obligation is the principle of utility, which says quite strictly that the moral end to be sought in all we do is the greatest possible balance of good over evil in the world as a whole. It follows from this understanding of utilitarianism that if there are inseparable difficulties in the way of measuring balancing good and evil and they certainly had difficulties, then this fact will constitute a serious objection to utilitarianism. There are act-utilitarianism called that general or at least where it is practicable, one is to tell what is right or obligatory by appearing directly to the principle of utility or in other words by trying to see which of the actions open to him will or is likely to produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe. The second kind of utilitarianism may be called general utilitarianism. It holds that one is not to ask in each situation which action as the best consequences, but it does not talk about rules. Rules-utilitarianism is rather different view, which has also be attributed to Mill and has been finding favour, depending on how it conciens of the rules that are so important in it scheme. We must recognize a basic principle of social justice .But which one? What is justice? We cannot go into whole subjects of social justice here: but we must at least complete our outline of a normative theory of moral obligation in which the principle of justice plays crucial role. There is an ethical theory that has been and still is widely accepted, especially in Jeudo-Christian circles, namely the Ethics of Love. This holds that there is only one basic ethics namely the Ethics of Love. This holds that there is only one basic ethical imperative to love and all the others are derived from it. Responsibility is in this way that the problem of freewill and determinism concept in ethics. Here determinism is the view that every event, including human choices and violation. This is caused by other events and happens and as an effect or result of those other events.
The last two chapters are intrinsic values and the good life and meaning of justification. Here is one table of uses of 'Good'
Moral value – things that are good on moral grounds.
Non-moral values:
Utility values – things that are because of their use only for some purpose
Extrinsic values – things that are good because they are means to what is good
Inherent values – things that are good because the experience of contemplating than is good or rewarding in itself
Intrinsic values – things that are good in themselves or good because of their own intrinsic properties
Contributive values – things that are good because they contribute to the intrinsically good life are parts of it
Final values – things that are good on the whole
What of the good life, the life it would be rational to choose? If what precedes is correct, the good life of the kinds listed earlier, that is, of activities and experiences that are enjoyable or both excellent in some degree and enjoyable. The theory of justification has the beginnings of a theory of the meaning and justification of ethical judgments. To go any farther, we must distinguish moral judgments proper from non-moral normative judgments and say something separately about the justification of each.
Critical evaluation
The problem of morality that remains has been mentioned before. Here arise three questions: Why should we be moral? Why should we take part in the moral institution of life? Why we adopt the moral pint of view? We have already seen that the question, "Why should….?" is ambiguous, and may be a request either for motivation or for justification. It is itself morally required to respect the individual's autonomy and liberty, and in general to treat him justly; and it must remember that morality is made to minister to the good loves of individuals and not to interfere with them any more than is necessary. Morality is made for man, not man for morality.
Conclusion
What is the moral point of view? This is a crucial question for the view the present situation has suggested. It is also one on which there has been much controversy lately. According to one theory, one is taking the moral pint of view if and only if one is willing to universalize one's maxims. Kant would probably accept this if he were alive. But I pointed out that one may be willing to universalize form a prudential point of view; and also that what one is willing to universalize is not necessarily a moral view.
Introduction
This book is intended to introduce students and general readers to the branch of philosophy called 'ethics'. The author tries to present some of the standard material of ethics that beginners and others should know. This will not summary of what moral philosophers are agreed up on, as introduction to other subjects may be summarieses of what the expects in those fields agreed upon. The author William K. Frankenas aim in this book is not just to introduce the problems and position of moral philosophers, but also to do moral philosophy. That is, he should try to write an essay in moral philosophy in which he looked forward some of his own views and reasoning and at the same time provide an introduction to the subject in general. In this spirit just indicated let he said something about his arguments in this book. While he gives agreements for or against a certain ethical position, he is not thinking of them as conclusive proofs and disproof's. Such conclusive proofs or disproof's are as difficult as they are as different as they are rare in philosophy.
In this book contain six chapters. First two chapters speak about morality and moral philosophy and also Egoistic Deontological Theories. In the ethical thinking Socrates is considered as the patron saint of moral philosophy. It is at the opening of the Plato's idea or dialogue. The dialogue gives us his answer to the question and a full account of his reasoning in arriving at it. In each of these agreements, Socrates appeals to a general moral rules or principles which, upon reflection, the agreement are that,
We ought never to harm anyone
We ought to give our promises
We ought to obey or respect our parents and teachers
In this book however, we shall take the moral traditional view of our subjects. We shall take ethics to include meta- ethics as just described, but as also including normative ethics or thinking of the second kind. Though only when this deal with the general questions about what is good/right or not. Deontological theories are also different kinds depending on the role they give to general rules. Act Deontological theories maintain that the basic judgments called obligations are purely particular one's like should do so and what ought to always to keep our promises are judgments. Ethical egoism is an ethical theory not a pattern of action or trial of character and is competable with being self effecting and unselfish in practice.
The second two chapters are utilitarianism, justice and love and moral value responsibility. Utilitarianism is the ultimate standard of right, wrong and obligation is the principle of utility, which says quite strictly that the moral end to be sought in all we do is the greatest possible balance of good over evil in the world as a whole. It follows from this understanding of utilitarianism that if there are inseparable difficulties in the way of measuring balancing good and evil and they certainly had difficulties, then this fact will constitute a serious objection to utilitarianism. There are act-utilitarianism called that general or at least where it is practicable, one is to tell what is right or obligatory by appearing directly to the principle of utility or in other words by trying to see which of the actions open to him will or is likely to produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe. The second kind of utilitarianism may be called general utilitarianism. It holds that one is not to ask in each situation which action as the best consequences, but it does not talk about rules. Rules-utilitarianism is rather different view, which has also be attributed to Mill and has been finding favour, depending on how it conciens of the rules that are so important in it scheme. We must recognize a basic principle of social justice .But which one? What is justice? We cannot go into whole subjects of social justice here: but we must at least complete our outline of a normative theory of moral obligation in which the principle of justice plays crucial role. There is an ethical theory that has been and still is widely accepted, especially in Jeudo-Christian circles, namely the Ethics of Love. This holds that there is only one basic ethics namely the Ethics of Love. This holds that there is only one basic ethical imperative to love and all the others are derived from it. Responsibility is in this way that the problem of freewill and determinism concept in ethics. Here determinism is the view that every event, including human choices and violation. This is caused by other events and happens and as an effect or result of those other events.
The last two chapters are intrinsic values and the good life and meaning of justification. Here is one table of uses of 'Good'
Moral value – things that are good on moral grounds.
Non-moral values:
Utility values – things that are because of their use only for some purpose
Extrinsic values – things that are good because they are means to what is good
Inherent values – things that are good because the experience of contemplating than is good or rewarding in itself
Intrinsic values – things that are good in themselves or good because of their own intrinsic properties
Contributive values – things that are good because they contribute to the intrinsically good life are parts of it
Final values – things that are good on the whole
What of the good life, the life it would be rational to choose? If what precedes is correct, the good life of the kinds listed earlier, that is, of activities and experiences that are enjoyable or both excellent in some degree and enjoyable. The theory of justification has the beginnings of a theory of the meaning and justification of ethical judgments. To go any farther, we must distinguish moral judgments proper from non-moral normative judgments and say something separately about the justification of each.
Critical evaluation
The problem of morality that remains has been mentioned before. Here arise three questions: Why should we be moral? Why should we take part in the moral institution of life? Why we adopt the moral pint of view? We have already seen that the question, "Why should….?" is ambiguous, and may be a request either for motivation or for justification. It is itself morally required to respect the individual's autonomy and liberty, and in general to treat him justly; and it must remember that morality is made to minister to the good loves of individuals and not to interfere with them any more than is necessary. Morality is made for man, not man for morality.
Conclusion
What is the moral point of view? This is a crucial question for the view the present situation has suggested. It is also one on which there has been much controversy lately. According to one theory, one is taking the moral pint of view if and only if one is willing to universalize one's maxims. Kant would probably accept this if he were alive. But I pointed out that one may be willing to universalize form a prudential point of view; and also that what one is willing to universalize is not necessarily a moral view.
No comments:
Post a Comment