Back to list
week 3
1.In ethical thinking, not only consideration of rules conflict with consideration of consequences, but also different rules can conflict with each other.
2.Normative Ethical Theories:
i.Consequential view: view in which morality is forward-looking, whether something is right or wrong depends on something it produces.
Non-consequential view: backward-looking or look at the present. e.g. This is right because I made a promise which is the past/ This is fair, this is looking at the present.It looks at the right, duties, fairness, etc
ii.Egoism: a view in which what makes an action right or wrong depends on its impact on oneself
iii.Nationalism: it is morally right if it benefits the nation
iv.Epistemism: it is right if it advances knowledge
v.Utiliarianism: a view in which an action is right if it produces utility such as happiness, pleasure and welfare
3.philosophihcal ethics moral theory: most stuff written has been about utilitarianism, either why we should acept it or we should accept it but what does it mean.
4.Immanuel Kant: ethics is not about consequences.
The only good thing that is good without qualification is a good will- i.e. a good will which wills well. The good lies in the willing, not in the particular thing which was willed.
The essense if that you need to have a principle, or a strong will.
Otherwise, rightness and wrongness are matters of fortuitousness or simply a person's natural characteristics(like height, weight), rather than necessary characteristics, and behaviour that we can exercise control over. And that is simply not how we think about morality.
5.Autonomy of will: we make principles according to which we will.
Willing well is a matter of consistency and univeralisability:
The test--
Could what you are willing become a universal law? That is "wht would things be like if everyone did it?"
It's not a matter of whether or not you would like it; but whether it could even be possible for there to be such a world.
6.We have a principle that could be accepted universally, and we are able to make ourselves will according to it, but the morality comes not in what the principles might be, but there is a principle we are strong enough to will according to.
1.In ethical thinking, not only consideration of rules conflict with consideration of consequences, but also different rules can conflict with each other.
2.Normative Ethical Theories:
i.Consequential view: view in which morality is forward-looking, whether something is right or wrong depends on something it produces.
Non-consequential view: backward-looking or look at the present. e.g. This is right because I made a promise which is the past/ This is fair, this is looking at the present.It looks at the right, duties, fairness, etc
ii.Egoism: a view in which what makes an action right or wrong depends on its impact on oneself
iii.Nationalism: it is morally right if it benefits the nation
iv.Epistemism: it is right if it advances knowledge
v.Utiliarianism: a view in which an action is right if it produces utility such as happiness, pleasure and welfare
3.philosophihcal ethics moral theory: most stuff written has been about utilitarianism, either why we should acept it or we should accept it but what does it mean.
4.Immanuel Kant: ethics is not about consequences.
The only good thing that is good without qualification is a good will- i.e. a good will which wills well. The good lies in the willing, not in the particular thing which was willed.
The essense if that you need to have a principle, or a strong will.
Otherwise, rightness and wrongness are matters of fortuitousness or simply a person's natural characteristics(like height, weight), rather than necessary characteristics, and behaviour that we can exercise control over. And that is simply not how we think about morality.
5.Autonomy of will: we make principles according to which we will.
Willing well is a matter of consistency and univeralisability:
The test--
Could what you are willing become a universal law? That is "wht would things be like if everyone did it?"
It's not a matter of whether or not you would like it; but whether it could even be possible for there to be such a world.
6.We have a principle that could be accepted universally, and we are able to make ourselves will according to it, but the morality comes not in what the principles might be, but there is a principle we are strong enough to will according to.