Responses to the Challenge of Amoralism
ABSTRACT: To the question "Why should I be moral?" there is a simple answer (SA) that some philosophers find tempting. There is also a response, common enough to be dubbed the standard response (SR), to the simple answer. In what follows, I show that the SA and SR are unsatisfactory; they share a serious defect.
To the question, "Why should I be moral?" there is a simple answer (SA) that some philosophers find tempting. There is also a response, common enough to be dubbed the standard response (SR), to the simple answer. In what follows I show that SA and SR are unsatisfactory; they share a serious defect.
I will interpret "Why should I be moral?" to mean "Why should I habitually perform the outward deeds prescribed by morality? Why, when I’m tempted to cheat or steal, ignore the sufferings of others, or renege on my commitments, should I do what morality calls for, and hence refrain from cheating and stealing, relieve the sufferings of others, and honor my commitments? Why should I go in for such things when so many other lifestyles are possible — for instance, that of a Gauguin or of a master criminal?" Perhaps the question has other meanings, but this is a natural one, and one to which SA and SR are meant to apply.
Interpreting the question this way removes some unclarity from the phrase "be moral." But it removes no ambiguities that might stem from the word "should." SA and SR purport to do this.
SA, briefly put, is this: "Why should I be moral?" is either a request for a moral reason to be moral or a request for another type of reason (or perhaps a motive) to be moral. In the first case it is absurd; in the second it is unreasonable or in some other way illegitimate....
... middle of paper ...
...t then, a page later, assumes without argument that altruistic considerations provide everyone with prima facie reasons to act. Understandably, he then treats "Why should I be moral?" as something more complicated than a request for a reason. The trouble is that Sterba’s "altruistic reasons" are among the things Foot calls moral considerations. Thus, he has not engaged Foot’s argument; he has made exactly the assumption her argument challenges.
(9) A similar objection has been used against Foot. See Robert L. Holmes, "Is Morality a System of Hypothetical Imperatives?" Analysis 34 (1973): 96–100. Foot’s reply to it, which differs from mine, is in "‘Is Morality a System of Hypothetical Imperatives?’ A Reply to Mr. Holmes," Analysis 35 (1974): 53–56.
(10) I discuss these and related distinctions in "Motivation and Practical Reasons," Erkenntnis 47 (1997): 105–27.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Meyer, Michael. The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 2189.
We have studied the two major theories that answer the question, “who should I be?”. These theories are egoism and altruism. In this paper, I will argue that the correct moral theory lies in-between the theories of egoism and altruism.
Severance, John B. Einstein: Visionary Scientist. New York: Clarion Books, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 14 Apr. 2014
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
Since his birth, Albert Einstein has had the most beneficial effects on the events of the world. Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany on March 14, 1979 and as a boy displayed an unquenchable curiosity for understanding science and all of its mysteries. As Albert Einstein’s life progressed, he found himself working as a patent clerk in Bern. While working as a patent clerk in Bern, Albert Einstein had a plethora amount of time which was devoted to formulating his theories. Also during this time, Albert Einstein received his Doctorate degree and started working on one of his most influential papers, which was the Special Theory of Relativity. After Einstein completed his Special Theory of Relativity, he moved onto creating the General Theory of Relativity which earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. With the creation of both the General Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein was able to create his Theory of Relativity which comprises of both theories. Other scientific discoveries that Einstein made are the existence of the photon, the theory of Brownian motion, the concept of Mass-energy equivalence, the photoelectric effect, the first quantum theory of specific heats, the Einstein-Brilloui-Keller method for finding the quantum mechanical version of a classical system , Bose-Einstein statistics and Bose-Einstein condensates, the EPR paradox, and although his efforts were unsuccessful, in his last thirty years of life Einstein explored various classical unified field theories that could account for both electromagnetism and gravitation and possibly quantum mechanics.
Stocker highlights the constraints that motives impose on both ethical theory and the ethical life in order to show that only when justifications and motives are in harmony can people lead the good life. Stocker believes that mainstream ethical theories, like consequentialism and deontology, make it impossible for people to reconcile their reasons and motives because these theories demand that people perform acts for the sake of duty or for the good, as opposed to because they care about the people who are affected by their actions.
Einstein became a hero, and the myth building began. Headlines appeared in newspapers all over the world. On November 8, 1919, for example, the London Times had an article headlined: "The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton." Two days later, The New York Times' headlines read: "Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs." The planet was exhausted with World War I, eager for some sign of humankind's nobility, and suddenly here was a modest scientific genius, seemingly interested only in pure intellectual pursuits.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Beyond the transcendence of science for which he is most famous, Albert Einstein made great contributions to American society and the world as a whole through his attitude, philosophy, and values. He was a free thinker who regularly challenged assumptions and conventional wisdom, inspiring future generations of scientists and engineers to do the
To act morally means one must think and act in such a way that always considers, supports, and attempts to improve general welfare; furthermore, such thoughts and actions must occur because of moral intentions, not just because one has to. Also, pre-defined rules exist for the common good and these rules help with moral judgment. Such rules would include “no killing”, “no stealing”, and “no lying”. These don’t exist to provide an advantage or cause disadvantage—they exist simply for the good of every individual. To have morality means one must always adhere to these rules no matter the consequences, who is affected, or how it happens, because they only ensure the most good for everyone. However, one’s own standards for morality must also remain considerate of that of others’.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
Klinkowitz, Jerome and Patricia B Wallace. The Norton Anthology of Americal Literature. Seventh. Vol. Volume D. New York City: Norton, 2007, 2003, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1985, 1979. 5 vols.
Greenblatt, Stephen, eds. The Norton Anthology English Literature. 9th ed. Crawfordsville: R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 2012. Print.
wants to know why he/she should be moral. According to Olen, the only answer to