The Concept of Morality

Posted: March 6th, 2024

The Concept of Morality
The Concept of Morality

1. Introduction

Morality is a term that refers to our adherence to rules that govern human behavior on the basis of some idea of right and wrong. Morality is traditionally thought to pertain to the conduct of human beings. It is also, and putatively, about the same sort of thing; that is, it is about providing guidance as to how one should act. While inquiry about art or the world might take us away from questions about painting and other aesthetic inquiries, only a person who could come to know everything could avoid the practical question of what one should do as a moral being. Research Paper Writing Service: Professional Help in Research Projects for Students – One could also make the case that morality is a kind of considerable topic on its own; even if both morality and the philosophy of art do give us guidance on what to do, only the former purports to tell us how to set up a society. In this sense, then, moral enquiry is not less practical than aesthetic or metaphysical enquiry, but more. Now a definition: “morality” is a term used to characterise a code of conduct that is considered right or acceptable in a given society. We do have answers, on the whole, to questions about what counts as evidence for a claim about a matter of fact in the world. On the other hand, despite the advent of psychological, sociological, and other research strategies that aim to attack given moral beliefs and practices at some foundation or other—either clarificatory or revisionist—it remains the case that we have not arrived at one unified and generally accepted system by which to measure the truth of moral statements.

1.1. Definition of Morality

To define morality, we first have to know what some things come before it means. Terms like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ make up morality. Morality is often defined as a system of rules for guiding human conduct, and principles for evaluating those rules. It’s actually hard to separate the concepts of good and bad from morality, because these are the building blocks for working on the topic of morality. Without these concepts, it will be difficult to think of any kind of morality. At the same time, however, it must be realized that moral values are not just any values, they are values that speak to the very core of what it means to be human. Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. Every member of a society who abides by the law uses morality to some extent to form a trustful and peaceful bond. Morality also functions as the ‘check’ to our self-serving and selfish nature. It guides one’s behavior and helps one to form that society inside, outside and around him, that is preferred to live in. Furthermore, it is the subset of knowledge. Knowledge is the total of facts, information and awareness of something, into its morality. And finally, morality develops in a person. Morality makes life meaningful and purposeful. Illegal acts are obvious because they violate existing laws and rules, but moral acts are less easily distinguishable. From one point of view, it’s wrong when a man pastors to worship gang members by giving them offerings of cigars. Since the man happens to be a priest in Dade County, Florida, the gang members and he are acting in league to violate the protective sweep statute of the Florida criminal code. From the other point of view, it would be more wrong if he uses his religious status to justify his gang members and him to promote their collective interest at the disadvantage of the society’s welfare, including answering to the cigars offerings.

1.2. Importance of Studying Morality

While the introductory section emphasizes the significance of the study of morals, the content indicates that ethics is an extremely crucial and relevant phenomenon in different societies of the world at large. It argues that global challenges such as terrorism, war, poverty, diseases, human rights violations, and environmental problems require ethical solutions. Also, it endeavors to underscore the fact that there is a need for a new approach in the study of morality and ethics. This section also indicates that the methods and theories of ethics and morality that were largely influenced by ancient philosophers and religious thinkers need to be revised and critically evaluated given the changes that have occurred in the past few decades in social, political and technological facets of human life. The section argues that the study of morals and moral challenges posed by powerful and rapidly changing science and technology such as gene therapy, cloning, artificial intelligence, information technology, and the internet should be given priority. This is interesting because it demonstrates that the objectives of the book are to critically evaluate the traditional moral theories and to develop new practical approaches in the light of the challenges posed by the rapid advancement of technology. The material introduces some of the moral challenges posed by technological developments and it seeks to prepare the ground for a new approach provided by the book in this contemporary academic debate.

2. Historical Perspectives on Morality

2.1. Ancient Philosophical Views on Morality

2.2. Religious Perspectives on Morality

2.3. Evolution of Morality in Modern Society

3. Theories of Morality

Deontological ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and ethical relativism are considered first. They are only two types of moral philosophy that Jon Tilbory says have had any significant part in medical ethics – the deontic reasoning derived from Kant whose ‘decisive consideration’. The idea that a relationship between the moral claims of individuals or groups and those of the state will be different in so-called ‘hard cases’ is based on the fact that his theory, insofar as it depends on the function of the will, is directed to the requisites of a morally satisfactory state of affairs. For example, when a woman who is 20 weeks’ pregnant decides she wants an abortion, in thinking about the reasoning in the debates, it may well be a Kantian, like I or Tiller. Who starts from the claim that it is prima facie. What counts is the individual’s certain justified belief that she has good reason to feel the way she does. Rather than utilitarianism, which is the moral view and method often employed in cost-benefit enquiry, comparing the good and bad effects of medical treatment on patients. Firstly, the analysis of different types of moral philosophy has the similar to that of the earlier section, by Alisdair MacIntyre. He identified and characterised a type of thought, and then with touching reference to it, lampooned its shortcomings so as to prepare the way for the next critique and emphasis. The main problem with relative moral principles is that they offer no practical framework for resolving moral disputes. On any occasion of moral discussion, there is no way to proceed other than by the clinical method of isolating what according to the principles invoked by each party what dismissible in his view – that is, he seems to use a rather formal line of argument, comparing and criticising the views of others. For example, he suggests that, since the Enlightenment, some have given up a belief in teleology, or the study of design and purpose in nature. He views the Nazis as assuming other cultures to be incapable of generating moral values and ends in accordance with them, and thinks the dangers of this view in contemporary medicine, where the powerful genetics and bio-technology is under the control on the main of the western capitalist world.

3.1. Deontological Ethics

Because these actions may be wrong under another version of deontology known as ‘consequentialist deontology’, they are morally binding and by association, maximums that inform how we lead our lives. It also allows the sufferer – or in this instance patient A – to maintain a level of autonomy and a personal right to decide. Largely the issue resolves from the notion that what is ‘good’ for the many isn’t always ‘right’.

1. Actions are intrinsically right or wrong and, therefore, are never morally neutral. This makes deontology quite different from consequentialist theories like utilitarianism. In a recent application of utilitarian ethics – that of a hospital deciding how to allocate a scarce quantity of the anti-flu drug Tamiflu – it was argued that patient A may be declined treatment on the basis that her condition was less serious and its limited resources should be used to give the most benefit. From a utilitarian stance this was the best ethical solution. However, if patient B had been given the drug and subsequently misused or say sold parts of an iPad in order to fund her newly recovered health, an act utilitarian would argue that the action would be seen as justified. This is because it was no longer ‘right’ in the moral sense of the word but ‘good’ given it created the greatest good for the greatest number. A deontologist would never argue that patient A should be denied treatment. This is because a deontologist believes that providing for the greater good does not necessarily act in fairness to the individual. The welfare of the apparatus or many – in this instance those that administer the treatment such as doctors or even pharmacists – cannot radiate through the moral decision of neglecting a seriously ill patient. Instead, deontologists believe that every person has a duty to act in the correct manner. This is termed the agent’s ‘duty of care’ and places the onus on the patient’s obligations as opposed to the beneficiaries.

Most famously put forth by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, deontological ethics holds that in having a duty to be moral, some actions are required – and others forbidden. Importantly, for deontologists some choices are just plain wrong – no matter the circumstances. Deontologists do what is ‘right’ not what is ‘good’. Deontological theories contain the following elements:

3.2. Utilitarianism

Research Paper Writing Service: Professional Help in Research Projects for Students – One of the most famous and influential forms of consequentialism is utilitarianism. This theory defines morality in terms of maximizing happiness and writing a UK dissertation assignment pro papers masters thesis writing – creating the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. It is based on the idea that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). To determine good action from bad action and good rule from bad rule, the will of a single person can be ignored, and the majority will should be considered more. There are two main approaches to utilitarianism. The first is Act Utilitarianism, and this is the most familiar form of utilitarianism, and the one usually found in the textbooks. This is the ethical theory that the ultimate goal of an action should be to maximize utility, which is the overall amount of good in the world. According to Act Utilitarianism, in any situation choices is regarded as right if they will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. However, sometimes making the whole society happy can cause some people to feel unpleasant. The theory would ignore the rights of certain individuals; it is because that it allows unacceptable actions as long as they lead to a good consequence – the end justifies the means. On the other hand, the second approach is Rule Utilitarianism. This is a version of utilitarianism that says that in a situation, choosing the act that will lead to the best result is not what needs to be calculated. Instead, a person should choose to apply the best rule which will lead to the greatest happiness. Ok, a ‘rule’ is like a moral principle; something that people should try to conform to. For example, to tell the truth that’s just not beneficial for others, it is not a good act according to Rule Utilitarianism. On the contrary, a person should not lie as well, because generally, telling the truth brings the greatest happiness against lying. With the existence of rules, it signifies that it could protect individual’s rights and it is especially suitable to the kind of society that has a concern for law and order.

3.3. Virtue Ethics

The virtue ethics entails the concept of a moral ethic congruent with moral characteristics that define a person or a particular ideal. According to Hursthouse, ethic instead focuses on what constitutes the right action. Thus, the contemporary virtue ethics pays more attention to moral character, the ancient virtue ethics was centered around the understanding of what constitutes human quality. But the contemporary virtues were listed from a typical ancient city life and it is now difficult to have a matching set of virtues due to the tendencies of the modern world. In its place in the modern world, people now admire honors, luxury and health comparing to traditionally courage, self-sacrifice and self-restraint. People are also more focused on education instead of seeking a harmonious as well as a worthwhile life. The investigator has some small room for adjusting the exemption-claiming project being to exercise it under the guide of some tradition that he will also be willing to argue as intrinsically worthy way of spending human life; and there is much more scope for the surrounding institutions to serve the human excellences that are found in a rich tradition than they can serve the good they rival account of individualics. Whether or not the contemporary life provides him with the right things to exercise his rational powers and to attain a full realization of those powers; also the tradition gives him the right values and desiderata and the institutions by which he is surrounded and in which he works serve the aim of passing on the tradition and fostering the excellences. He must be sufficiently lucky to enjoy opportunities for growth and he must have made enough it in the dice so that the well-doing projects of his excellences have a fair chance of being successful. He is lucky, too, if the ordinary court of affairs in our society enables him to carry out his plans in a harmonious and successful way; and this not only for his own sake but also for the sake of the importance of human life. So as the difference between the virtue and the other departments of the ethical theory is that all other kinds of the ethical theory tell people that in life people will be well off to pleasure on their own behalf and not be worried about anything except themselves. None of the other ethical theories mention about what make the life valuable or even mention what have been said about the values or the self. Odyssey describes a society missing the values of family, home and loyalty and instead substituting an excessive fever to struggle and celebration of violence. He frets that the young people of this society will be devoid of any excellence or goodness of life (Plato 2500). He continues that the proper appreciation of the connections between human excellences and the goodness of human life leads to a defense of the traditional virtues and to a detraction and diagnosis of the shortcomings of the modern spirits that threaten the excellences and therefore the proper appreciation of those connections. So the main task is for a human good, fundamentally consists in leading a life that realizes human excellences and that make the life spent worthwhile. In such a life, an individual can achieve the true happiness people desire. The contemporary virtue ethics seems to have three problems. First of all, a convincing theory should provide clear directions or normative leads: but the focused condition in virtue ethical theory may expecting too much or even demanding. Second, Abel’s normative account has criticized it may developing into a mere half-hearted form of consequentialism. Lastly, a satisfying rational theory should leave no doubt in the nudgeness of how something can or should be achieved. However, perhaps someone may argue that contemporary virtue ethics creates a good platform for distributive justice.

3.4. Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. There are no moral standards that apply to all people at all times. Different societies have different moral codes. According to ethical relativism, there is no objective standard by which to judge the moral norms of a society. Some societies condemn actions like polygamy and capital punishment, while others commend or at least tolerate these practices. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on how to live together. Supporters of this theory point to the fact that many societies have different customs and moral values. However, it seems to be a step too far to conclude that there are no objective moral principles at all – even if these might be limited in scope. Many features of moral codes around the world are in conflict. For example, the moral norms of a society may permit slavery or they may require the subjugation of women – well-documented historical examples. If we accept ethical relativism, we would have to accept that what we should do is determined by our unique circumstances, which seem to include the moral norms of our society. But this seems to fly in the face of our ordinary understanding of the nature of morality. While ethical relativists believe that cultural differences provide a rational basis for tolerance and understanding, this is not necessarily true. If ethical relativism is true, it would be morally wrong to criticize the practices of a society that are different from ours, such as media censorship or the repression of political dissent. It is difficult to see how progress could be made. While we might expect that the members of a society observe certain moral norms, this expectation would be simply based on the assumption that what is right is relative to that society. Ethical relativism also seems to have troubling consequences, such as that it is impossible to criticize socially ingrained practices within a society. For example, it would be impossible to criticize the way women are treated in some Middle Eastern cultures or the role of tradition in interfering with attempts at modernization in certain African societies. It also seems impossible to criticize the actions of an individual against the moral norms of his or her own society. It follows that any moral reformer is himself mistaken, since his beliefs must be a product of his own cultural circumstances.

4. Contemporary Issues in Morality

In deciding how to act, individuals must consider to some extent how their choices might affect other people, regardless of how it might affect them. This is a concept of morality, a term used to refer to that cluster of moral beliefs and practices through which human beings negotiate (to live with and contribute to) the groups in which they are members. All human societies, whether simple or complex, and whether globally or locally considered, use a morality to navigate the world. As to the why and wherefores of different behaviours, as a way of giving reasons for what people do, and as a basis for choosing between different courses of action. Indeed, many people had very good reasons for thinking about morality in terms of contributions to human welfare. As a result, the discipline of medical ethics has emerged in recent years as an important subsection of applied ethics. Such applied ethical analyses of medicine tend to emphasize the adjudication of moral problems which arise in the doctor-patient relationship. Though this emphasis is still maintained, more and more opportunities for professionals to engage in substantive discussions of wider social issues which are focused upon the moral dimensions of large-scale social policies, technological developments and the political organization of medicine in modern societies are being created. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see downsides of new technology. For example, the automobile and its large-scale commercialization had a big impact on morality and the lives of people. It is debatable whether technology leads to changes in morality or whether it simply facilitates changes that were already taking place. The basic problem with technological advance is that most of us are relatively helpless in the face of any overwhelming new technology. This is especially true in the case of information technology. The modern world presents us with an array of perplexing moral issues. The spreading of multinational corporations and a growing body of global regulations has raised the question of how work and wealth is to be distributed throughout the world. Workers, whether at home or abroad, are rarely in a position to have any decisive impact on the uses of the technologies in which they participate and such workers are rarely consulted on the initial appropriateness of those technologies. It remains to be seen how far and in what ways information technology will change the ethical landscape in terms of communication.

4.1. Moral Dilemmas in Medical Ethics

The principle of autonomy, based on freedom and rationality, is applied in many ethical dilemmas in the medical context involving patients. For example, a patient may refuse certain treatment for a diagnosis he has. At the same time, such a patient may request the physician in charge of his case to stop giving information and talking about the diagnosis with a family member. It is common sense that the physician should listen to the patient and provide him with professional care. However, the physician may feel differently in his mind as the patient is refusing the most appropriate treatment according to his knowledge. This puts the physician into a tough situation as he has the duty to respect the patient’s autonomy while he may believe the patient’s decision is not rational and not in the best interest of the patient. This kind of moral dilemma is very typical in the medical field. In many cases, no matter how the disagreement is solved by the parties or how the compromise is reached, the most significant point is that the physician should always value the patient’s autonomy. Because giving up the patient’s autonomy means giving up the patient’s status as a person, and that would definitely hinder the development of the patient-physician relationship. On the other hand, in most of the cases in real life, the decision is never clear-cut and dry: one is completely right and another is utterly wrong. It depends on the specific circumstances of each case. For the above example, if the treatment the patient refers to is proved to be effective in a very low success rate, then probably the denial of the physician to follow the patient’s request can be justified. A close and fruitful discussion amongst philosophers can be found from scholars of different perspectives and views. This marks the beginning of the development of a set of pan-time principles in medical ethics. This set of principles, commonly known as “The Principles of Biomedical Ethics,” which was first developed by Beauchamp and Childress in 1985, is now widely acclaimed by many philosophers and physicians. The principles include the principle of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. The four main ideas make providing good ethical patient care and treatment decisions: the patient has the right to make his own choices about treatment; the physician should not do things that may destroy or further worsen the patient’s conditions; the positions and treatments provided by the physician should bring the best interest; it ensures that the patients benefit from the positions and equal rewards should be provided from the health resources shared in society. These principles provide general guidance on what professional physicians should do. However, it is important to note that since different cases may pose different challenges, there is no one principle that could provide plain as day decisions in solving ethical dilemmas. Clinicians are required to provide more specific guidance, that is, how the four general principles can be applied in different situations. As a result, the concept of “medical ethics” has developed, and the importance of a consistent and comprehensive ethical framework in medical practices is stressed. This framework is not only limited to professional physicians and philosophers but also serves as a guideline for the course of actions for every one of us.

4.2. Morality and Technology

The rapid advancement of technology in the modern world has raised the issue of moral values and their place in today’s society. The impact of technology on morality is a particularly important issue and one that has received considerable attention in recent years. The author notes that technological advances have given rise to new forms of conduct as technology changes the way in which we interact with the physical and social worlds. For instance, the development of the internet and social media has raised a number of important questions – not least with regard to the ethical impact of social media on our capacity for empathic concern and compassion. The author argues that the progress of technology itself is seen as a solution to any problems associated with advancing technology, so that if a certain way of life is built into a particular technology that might seem to be incompatible with values such as autonomy or justice, there is a tendency to look to technologists to provide technical solutions that will allow the technology to continue to advance and that will also preserve our traditional moral commitments. However, the author is keen to stress that it is the actual moral values that are at stake and the need to have pluralism and consideration and understanding of different value systems. This pluralism is the idea that contemporary societies contain a multitude of different social, ethnic, or religious groups, and that each of these groups will have different moral values. The impact of technology on these societies and the intrusion of external forces on local values might be revealed in the reaction of a society to technological advances and the extent to which that society is willing to adapt or to maintain its established values. The author sets out the following view in relation to technological progress and its place in moral discourse: one’s perspective on technology and its ethical implications will depend on the extent to which one takes a positive view of technological change and so-called “technological progress” as something that is desirable.

4.3. Morality in Business and Economics

Businesses operate in the context of a society’s legal and regulatory framework. Moreover, businesses also need to take into account the moral expectations of their stakeholders. This includes customers, the community in which the business is situated, regulators, and investors. However, it is often publicly perceived that businesses fail to fulfill social expectations of maintaining ethical and moral conduct in the pursuit of profit. There have been many instances where companies have been found to be indiscreet in their quest to maximize profit margins. An example would be looking to exploit a legal loophole to avoid paying tax. Do My Assignment For Me UK: Class Assignment Help Services Best Essay Writing Experts – Another action might be to exploit workers or customers in order to make a bigger profit for shareholders. Furthermore, there is also an expectation that the government should regulate commercial activity to ensure that businesses behave in a moral way. However, numerous scandals have cast doubt on being too reliant on government control. These include the VW emissions scandal and the horse meat scandal where it was found that certain meat products labeled beef actually contained horse meat. Various philosophical theories have been filed to establish what the moral and ethical responsibilities of corporate businesses are. For example, shareholder theory argues that a business is there to serve the interests of its owners – the shareholders. It suggests that the only social responsibility that businesses have is to maximize profit, in which businesses can solely satisfy their duties. On the other hand, stakeholder theory argues that there are other legitimate moral claims and that enterprises should acknowledge these in their decision-making process. It holds that for businesses to be moral, they should consider the interests of all parties that could be affected by a particular business decision. This would include workers, suppliers, and customers.