“MY ETHICAL SYSTEM AND ITS JUSTIFICATION”

“My ethical system and its justification”



“My ethical system and its justification”

This report is about analyzing the ethical system I personally subscribe to and its justification. For all that I have believed, interpret, and discussed moral principles over the years; I still face difficulty in replying to this query distinctly and effectively. While I am writing this essay now, I had the valuable recognition that my trouble talking about this topic in the recent times is mainly because of the reality that there are numerous manners in which one can answer this query and consequently there are various answers from me.

My personal moral system is established on several challenges. At a particular instance, I could be in favor of the death penalty for the killer and all of a sudden, there is a possibility that I will switch my thought and talk against the death conviction. I could conceive in employing emotion over cause and then some other instance I could conceive in only employing emotion to constitute my personal determinations. There are various ethical theories, but I will discuss briefly about three of them. The three theories of ethics that I will be discussing in this paper are:

Reason vs. Emotions

Cultural Relativism

Utilitarianism.

The first theory about ethical system that I will discuss here is reason vs. emotion. Cause vs. emotion is related to employing abstract thought to constitute moral assessments. I conceive that the cause should be employed to constitute moral assessments. “There are 2 fundamental factors in moral system of Immanuel Kant. 1st moral principles are established on perfect cause: neither our beliefs nor our empirical reflection of the universe act any role in morals. 2nd, the capability to abide by the strictly intellectual prescribes of the intellectual ethical jurisprudence must come up from the exceptional content of the individual wish (and not from emotions or dispositions)” (Waller 2008, pp 24). I believe that the power to abide by the conventions and regulations derives from our power to rationality and the power to consider the benefits and drawbacks to come after them, not from our emotions.

The 2nd moral hypothesis I am delineating here is utilitarianism morals. Utilitarianism morals are “The moral hypothesis that adjudicates the correctness or incorrectness of a play with reference to its aftermaths- particularly, whether it develops the most distinguished equilibrium of joy over agony for everybody implied” (Waller 2008, pp 332) or established on assaying the most enjoyable consequence to moral quandaries. I conceive that bearing a lifespan established just on enjoyable feelings are not worthy because if you don't go through anguish how would you acknowledge what joy is. On the matter of utilitarianism morals, I'd have to agree Nozick's dispute of valuable moral principle. Nozick delivers a scenario which has scientists making a joy machine. The machine is so original that an individual couldn't differentiate the deviation between fact and fantasy. The machine would constitute all of your ambitions come genuine without any anguish or demise only total happiness. Nozick then extends to explicate that though the machine would be avid for ...