Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not only a theoretical knowledge, but rather that a person must have "experience of the actions in life" and have been "brought up in fine habits" to become good (NE 1095a3 and b5). For a person to become virtuous, he can't simply study what virtue is, but must actually do virtuous things.
The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it is wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y". [ 9 ] Moral universalists argue further that their system often does justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly ...
According to motivated desire theory, when a person is motivated to moral action it is indeed true that such actions are motivated—like all intentional actions—by a belief and a desire. But it is important to get the justificatory relations right: when a person accepts a moral judgment he or she is necessarily motivated to act.
It is this sense that gave rise to the phrase, "To a moral certainty;" [2] however, this idea is now seldom used outside of charges to juries. Moral reasoning is an important and often daily process that people use when trying to do the right thing. For instance, every day people are faced with the dilemma of whether to lie in a given situation ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are right (e.g., helping someone) and those that are good (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the right prior to the good; to him, the latter was morally dependent on the former. In Kant's view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is right, or moral, through empirical means.
The argument from disagreement, also known as the argument from relativity, first observes that there is a lot of intractable moral disagreement: people disagree about what is right and what is wrong. [3] Mackie argues that the best explanation of this is that right and wrong are invented, not objective truths.
[3]: 5 So "it is my duty to do act A from the sense that it is my duty to do act A". [3]: 5 To avoid this problem, Ross suggests that moral goodness should be distinguished from moral rightness or moral obligation. [3]: 5 The moral value of an action depends on the motive but the motive is not relevant for whether the act is right or wrong.