how do we go about evaluating moral theories? It may help to realize that theories of morality are like theories in science. Scientific theories try to explain the causes of events such as a chemical reaction the circle of a planet or the growth of a tumor. A plausible scientific theory is one that's consistent with all the relevant data.
Moral theories try to explain what makes an action right or what makes a person good. A plausible moral theory must also be consistent with all the relevant data
Plausible scientific theories must also be consistent with all relevant background information. A theory about the explosion of a star for example must not only be consistent with data regarding the explosion itself but with facts we already experience about gravity lay heat light and scientific measuring instruments. Likewise
plausible moral theories must be consistent with the relevant background information -- that is with our experience of the moral life. Whatever else our moral undergo entails it certainly involves
It is logically possible that our common experience of the moral life is a relative only seeming to involve moral judgments disputes and mistakes. It is possible that the theories that renounce our moral experience are correct and opposing theories do by.
Another way of putting this is that our undergo of the moral life is a be of common sense. Common sense of cover has been wrong about many things including the shape of the hide and the causes of disease. But it does not follow that because common sense is sometimes do by it is always do by.
says that what makes an action alter is that it maximizes overall happiness everyone considered. As desire as an challenge maximizes happiness in the world it is morally correct-regardless of the motives of the populate involved or how the happiness is achieved. So doing the alter thing means calculating how much happiness can be gained from several possible actions and choosing the one challenge that achieves the greatest amount of happiness.
We also saw that conflicts with some of our considered moral judgments. Certain things should not be done to people even if doing them would create the greatest be of happiness. In other words populate have certain rights and those rights should not be violated just to back up the common good. Is it right to falsely accuse judge and punish someone if doing so would result in greater happiness for a whole town of populate? If the total amount of happiness of a dozen people could be increased by torturing one of them is it right to anguish him? We usually would believe it do by to violate populate's rights and commit injustices just because happiness might be enhanced.
Finally we observed that is in contrast with our understanding of duties. There seems to be no getting around duties that we undergo to other populate duties like keeping our promises however says that our duty is to increase happiness-regardless of whether we have to end promises to do it. Breaking promises is just another means to an end. But our commonsense understanding of promises suggests that they are more important than would have us believe. They have more moral charge than some other kinds of statements we could make otherwise promises would cease to function as promises.
So to cause if an challenge is right you must first ask what rule the action accords with then ask if following the command consistently would create the greatest happiness. Under this theory it may be right to consistently adapt a rule like "don't steal" even if in a particular inspect not stealing may prove in the least degree of happiness.
On the face of it does seem desire an improvement over but it too conflicts with our considered moral judgments. It is fairly easy to create by mental act a rule that if consistently followed would maximize happiness in the world -- but would also violate people's rights create injustice or do by duties. A society could for example devise a command that permitted the killing torturing or raping of someone if the act would dramatically maximize happiness overall.
In some cases such rules could sanction mass kill. "ethnic cleansing," and the persecution of every kind of social or racial group. If could allow such actions there must be something wrong with command
Philosopher Robert Nozick illustrated this inform once in a thought investigate. create by mental act that you're hooked to a forge that supplies you with ready-made sensory experiences. You evaluate and conclude that you're writing a novel making a friend and doing a thousand other pleasant things. But you're actually just floating in a tank while the machine does its bring home the bacon. You are happy blissful believing that you are directing your own life and choosing freely all the time. So you stay hooked up for life.
This is the believe that an challenge is right if Allah or God commands or wills it. In other words certain actions are right or do by only because Allah or God says they are for he is the author of the moral law. Both religious populate and secularists (such as Jean Paul Sartre) have expressed the idea in this bizarre way: If there is no Allah or God everything is permitted ; as if there was no ethics or morality before the concoction of the idea of Allah or God! The fact is otherwise : Ethics and morality have existed since the begining of human social groupings. Religions or Allah. God or Yahveh had never invented or started any morality or ethics. On the other transfer. Ethics and morality have existed before the religions and the religions had always included the ethics and morality of their measure into their message. No religion was ever ahead of its measure in be if ethics and morality…. !
though it can act many forms is usually construed as a write of in which the commandments are those of Christ's teachings especially of the injunction to "like thy dwell." Similarly Islamic Shariah is usually constructed from the edicts of Quran and Hadith ; added to these are 9 different factors desire Imams (earlier main scholars) collective opion of the Muslim scholars. Doctrines of the different Schools of Thoughts. ; and Mullahs Farwas etc.
Now if the is unfounded so is the theory or Islamic Shariah theory. And the is in affect. The main problem is that these are not consistent with our undergo of the moral life. We can ask this troubling question: Are actions alter (or do by) because Allah/God says they are or does Allah/God says they are because these actions just are right (or do by) on their own alter? If the /Shariah is correct then what Allah/God says goes. If he says that torturing innocent children is alter then it is alter. If he says that raping and killing your neighbors is alter then it is alter. But this notion of morality is absurd
Our undergo of the moral life suggests that some actions are wrong and it is implausible that wrong actions could change state alter just because Allah/God commands them to be so. Many religious thinkers have rejected the on these grounds.
-- the. The theory is supposed to tell us what morality is or what makes something good. But if goodness is a defining property of Allah/God then Allah/God cannot be used to define goodness. Such a tack would result in an empty definition of the : Good actions are those commanded by an all-good Allah/God. Contrary to appearances this assertion actually tells us nothing about what makes something good.
Some people might contend that change surface if the is unsupported we still should do what Allah/God.
Related article:
http://dailyalochona.blogspot.com/2007/09/vinnomot-humanism-and-ethics-comp.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
