More handpicked essays just for you.
Concept of moral responsibility
What is moral responsibility and how does it affect society
Moral obligation versus moral responsibility
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this essay, I will argue that though Strawson’s Basic Argument is sound, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term “acting morally responsible” which holds us all accountable for our actions. Firstly, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument as well as distinguish between Strawson’s and society’s definitions of being morally responsible. Secondly, I will justify Strawson’s first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute the response of author Ian McEwan.
In short, Strawson’s Basic Argument proves that we cannot ultimately be morally responsible for what we do. He concludes this from three premises: 1) Humans behave the way they do because of the way they are 2) If you’re going to be responsible for the things
However, as mentioned above, society makes the words illegal and immoral synonymous. For instance, in a very traditional, albeit outdated, tribe in Africa, cannibalism exists and isn’t frowned upon. Since this is how the tribe has lived for centuries and thus the way they are, they cannot be held responsible for their actions according to Strawson. While I believe that to be true, society still views the actions of this tribe immoral, and regardless of who they are or how they were raised, they would still be held accountable.
Another example of this could be a child operating a motor vehicle under the legal age. Though Strawson might say that if the child was raised in an environment where he was taught that doing that was okay by his parents he should not be held morally responsible, society would say the otherwise. Strawson’s biggest fault in his argument is not realizing that society has altered the definition of moral responsibility. Strawson is correct in saying we cannot control the person we are, but fails to mention that we also cannot control the rules dictated by society that we are expected to follow the moment we are
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
The objection says that Singer’s analyses of moral duty conflicts with society’s current outlook on charity, which views it as not an obligation but a personal choice, where those who choose to give are praised for their philanthropy but those who choose not to give are not condemned (236). Singer retorts this objection by saying that we as a society need to essentially change our perspective of charity (236). What Singer means by this is that we need to drastically revise our ideas of what a moral duty is because, in agreement with Singer’s premise that we are morally obligated to help those who are suffering if it is within our power to do so without causing something equally as bad as the suffering to happen (231), charity should be considered as our moral responsibility and a mandatory duty for society
...morally justified our future actions. This entire proposal is not here to tell society what is being done at the current state, but it is telling you what you are obligated to do as a human being. If we took the moral standpoint, as we should, at all times when making decisions, we would find that moral justification would take a backseat to obligation.
Responsibility and Vice is a topic that Aristotle argues in the Nicomachean Ethics . His argument is based off of the presumption that we are responsible, and open to praise or blame, for having a virtuous or vicious character. His claim for this argument is that we are ultimately in charge of our character, which is decided through our actions. Although Aristotle believes in this, however there are times in life where you are not in complete control of your actions.
ABSTRACT: This paper explores the connection between supererogation and the integrity of ethical agents. It argues two theses: (1) there is a generally unrecognized but crucial social dimension to the moral integrity of individuals which challenges individual ideals and encourages supererogation; (2) the social dimension of integrity, however, must have limits that preserve the individuals's integrity. The concept of integrity is explored through recent works by Christine Korsgaard, Charles Taylor, and Susan Babbitt. A life of integrity is in part a life whereby one 'lives up to' one's own deeply held values. Yet, as one seeks to transcend the realm of the morally customary or the dutiful, one must check one's progress not only against one's own ideals but against the ideals and behavior of the ethical community. To answer affirmatively to one's own ideals is to hear the call of integrity both from within oneself and from without. However, by being free to hear, the freedom to close one's ears inevitably will arise. Only actions displaying such freedom can be actions of moral integrity. Since supererogatory actions are always left to an agent's discretion-that is, are fully optional-they show in paradigmatic fashion the integrity of moral agents. While an ethic of integrity and supererogation provides challenges to members of an ethical community by encouraging them continually to reevaluate their actions and character in reference to postulated ideals, it also leads us to be quite wary of judging individual's moral motives from the outside. A passage by Jonathan Kozol is cited that suggests our society routinely demands supererogatory action from its poorest members. This i...
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
All people worldwide go through the process of moral reasoning, which has been defined as "a cognitive process by which individuals make decisions about moral issues and justify these decisions, regardless of the context of the issue" (Gardiner, 1998, p.176). But not all of these people come to the s...
I will begin by defining humanity and responsibility. Humanity is nothing more than a group of humans living in harmony. Humanity can also be interpreted as feelings of kindness, compassion, brotherhood, consideration, understanding, and sympathy, among others. Responsibility is defined as: the state of being autonomous in making decisions, can also be defined as an authority, leadership, power, control, among others. It is extremely important that humans can show humanity towards everything around them and that they are responsible enough to protect people and the environment; This research paper will focus on how authors like Elizabeth Bishop, John Updike, Jim Willis and Maxine Kumin, emphasized the
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
Some Philosophers believe that free will is not required in moral responsibility. John Fischer states that “human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions.” Fischer is basically saying that moral responsibility is not as strong as free will (Timpe).
Complete free exercise of will inhibits individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm onto others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act. People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr...
The distinction between doing and allowing can be made, but the moral applications of it vary based on the situation to which they are applied. It can be argued, though, that when doing and allowing both bring about the same consequence, there is no moral difference in which action is chosen. Even though many different distinctions can be made between how doing and allowing bring about different sequences, they both bring about the same means; therefore, logical reasoning and a level head must be used to evaluate the right course of action.
This world has turned into a place where people are required to take full responsibility for their actions and words. Often we do this informally, via moral judgment or if not through legal judgment. In other words we become morally responsible, deserving praise, blame, reward or punishment for an act or omission based upon one’s moral obligations, thus contradicting the concept of free will. Main viewpoints on moral responsibility interact with the following three, constructed by human action: determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. A philosopher once said “Just as we separated the concept ‘free’ from the concept of ‘will’ in order to better understand ‘free will,’ so we need to separate ‘moral’ and responsibility."