ETHICS

Argumentative Paper on Ethics

Argumentative Paper on Ethics

Ethical and unethical practices are separated by fine boundaries, although sometimes it becomes very hard for the third person to identify whether any practice is ethical or unethical, however, the person who is directly involved in that malpractice detects it in an instant. Thus, people who really are committed to remain ethical easily identify an ethical situation from an unethical one. These could be identified by anyone regardless of their expertise however, to detect unethical situations and add to productivity eventually, it is imperative for any individual to be committed and vigilant. The stance on ethics differs from person to person however the universality of its actions and effects could be seen as worth the efforts that are needed to promote ethics on every front. Ethics is an element that has this world running and its operations falling in the right path; that is helping them elicit the very idea they were intended to, and it is as a result of this the importance of ethics cannot be further emphasized and it is sough for almost all the entities.

Best Ethical System

Considering the philosophers' ethical systems, Aristotle's Ethical system also known as 'Virtue Ethics a la Aristotle' emerges as the best ethical system on the basis of the fact that it presents its audience with fundamental principles of ethics through making them self-evident. Deontological ethics a la Kant and Utilitarian Ethics a la J S Mill stands in contrast with Virtue Ethics a la Aristotle in that Aristotle was not impacted by the 'Is Ought' fallacy concerning moral reasoning presented by David Hume in his earlier version. The 'Is Ought' fallacy which focused on the defiance of moral conclusion placed significant impact on the Kant's Philosophizing as well as Mills Ethics. This impact was apparently an outcome of the campaign that was started by logical positivists that promoted David Hume's view, however they not only promoted David Humes' view it but they went so far as to rate moral statements as pointless. This means they refuted the fact that moral statements and statutes are of immense importance rather recognizing it as futile. The events generated confusion which impacted the ethical system that subsequently was developed by Kant and J S Mills. Even after recognizing the fallacy, Kant and Mills remained contented with 'Universal Law and Good Will' and 'The Greatest Good of the Greatest Number' as opposed to the 'Kindly Sentiments' by David Hume comprising the ethical system.

Aristotle did not give in to the confusion but in fact noticed the element of significance even before the confusion ensued by David, which is the simple converse truth comes to the effect implying the inability of any ontological statement to refute on logical grounds the principle of ethics pertaining to 'Ought' and 'Ought Not'. Aristotle contended that ontological statements could not be used for the purpose of rationally justifying ethics. It was in relevance with this understanding that the first principle was revealed by ...