Book Review,Tossy Thomas

THE PHILOSPHY RIGHT AND WRONG BY BERNARD MAYO

 

Introduction

In this stimulating book, professor mayo offers a solution in terms of natural law, which involves reflections on the relevant aspect of human nature and the human condition, as well as on the special nature and the human condition, as well as on the special nature of prescriptive language? In addition, several major movements in moral philosophy, both classical and contemporary, are critically examined in the light of set of tests for an adequate moral theory. These are the main idea of these text determinism Emotivism Releativism prescriptivism morality and self interest

 

Determinism

Is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. The several versions of this thesis rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception. There have been many versions of deterministic theories in the history of philosophy, springing from diverse motives and considerations; some of which overlap considerably. These should be considered in the light of their historical significance, together with certain alternative theories that philosophers have proposed. There are five theories of determinism to be considered, which can for convenience be called ethical determinism, logical determinism, theological determinism, physical determinism, and psychological.

Emotivism

It asserts that all ethical statements made by people are in fact statements of personal preference, and not statements of truth in any way. If someone says, "killing is wrong", they are not saying that there is some vague universal ethic that makes killing bad, and they are simply saying that they don't like it when killing occurs.

One advantage of this view is that it completely cuts away a lot of ethical baggage. You cannot build a tool to measure ethics, and an emotivist would say that is because there is nothing there to measure. Another advantage is that it seems largely to be borne out in speech. A lot of people do seem to have emotional content when they make ethical statements
On the other hand, while ethical statements have emotional content, it doesn't always seem to be the entirety of the content. If people really thought of ethics as just a preference, argument about it would be near-universally seen as nearly pointless, just as people don't argue about favorite ice cream flavors'. Yet arguments do occur, and people do try and persuade others which suggest there is at least a hint of reason mixed in with the emotion.

 

Relativism

Relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and the individual determines what is true and relative for them. Relativism theorizes that truth is different for different people, not simply that different people believe different things to be true. While there are relativists in science and mathematics, ethical relativism is the most common variety of relativism. Almost everyone has heard a relativist slogan:

·       What's right for you may not be what's right for me.

·       What's right for my culture won't necessarily be what's right for your culture.

·       No moral principles are true for all people at all times and in all places.

Ethical relativism represents the position that there are no moral absolutes, no moral right or wrong. This position would assert that our morals evolve and change with social norms over a period of time. This philosophy allows people to mutate ethically as the culture, knowledge, and technology change in society. Slavery is a good example of ethical relativism. Repeatedly the value of a human being is determined by a combination of social preferences and patterns, experience, emotions, and "rules" that seemed to bring about the most benefit.

Prescriptivism

It shows how we can be both free and rational in forming our moral beliefs. Moral beliefs can be free because they express our desires and aren't provable from facts. They can be rational because the logic of "ought" leads to a method of moral reasoning that engages our rational powers to their limits.Problem of prescriptivism, while it has important insights, seems to rest on a questionable foundation. It says that ought judgments are universalizable prescriptions (or imperatives), and not truth claims. This leads it to deny the possibility of moral knowledge and moral truths -- which seems to conflict with how we approach ethics in our daily lives.

Morality and self interest

There is the sharpest possible contrast between morality and self interest so much that the pursuit of self-interest is actually described as a case of being unfree because it is a matter of being subject to alien pressure in THIS case the pressure of wants and needs which are mine but are external to my true self. one must do one`s duty whatever the sacrifice to one`s own interest may be even if there is no after –life. All writers including modern philosophers supported to kant in the view that morality  and self – interest are absolutely distant and that no appeal can be made to self – interest to back up the claims of morality, sine morality is against self –interest .

 

Conclusion

Ethics is the formal study of moral standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy." What is good? And what is evil? How should I behave - and why? How should I balance my needs against the needs of others? Is ethics or moral philosophy a practical or theoretical subject? It will be obvious from the outset that this volume is not a practical handbook. It does not contain instructions on how to be good. But these book arise a question about it. What are the difference and the relation, between the practical and theoretical ethics?