The concept of whether ethics should drive an individual to give himself priority or the others is quite contentious. Yet still, we sometimes lie because we feel we are protecting certain interests. Philosophically these contentious issues are very paradoxical and require close attention and understanding. This paper looks at a few challenges in the understanding of the entire concept. Introduction to Ethics Whereas ethic is more concerned about our values and how we consistently live according to those values, morality refers to group set values and how the individual in the group live in accordance with the group values.
Presumably while ethics refer to the contention of the self, morality is more concerned with the value set by a group such as the society. It is apparent that morality is more of s second party perception whereas ethics is a first party perception. When individuals set values for themselves and project the very self values to others, they will refer to them as ethical. On the other hand when the society sets standards for the members, this are said to be aspects of morality Euthyphro discussion response Sufficiently, I feel the argument by Plato is convincing enough.
Ideally the holy can be determined by human being but the gods can not be determined by the human being. In addition the holy and the gods are only related but have no direct linkage. In deed what is holy is not necessarily what has been approved by the gods. First, the gods are treated as very distinct creatures; in the sense that every human being could after all have his own god. Taking the reason for example for which Socrates goes to jail; ‘worshiping gods that were not approved’ implies not all gods will offer divinity.
Yet what is holy will just remain that, holy, regardless of the gods. Given that the gods are relatively many and vary according to the subject, and that holiness is a matter of ethics and morality, Plato would have given an example that involved professed individual getting involved in acts that were not acceptable by the society. Take for example killing; to some gods this is right, while universally, it will be it is not holy. Kant’s Discussion: Means For Kant it was utterly wrong to use people as mere to an end.
He implied that whenever we visited doctors for example we use the as means to wellbeing of our health. However, the agreement between the practitioner and the patient is much autonomous. Ideally none of the two is being forced into the contract. In this case the contract passes the categorical imperative perception. In this case I treat the doctor as a means to an end. In criminology, ladies can be used to track down on criminals, however, when the criminals are lastly found, the whole appreciation goes to the criminal department.
Ideally the lady is only used as a means but is not an end. On the other hand when an individual is used to attain certain goal for purposes of benefiting the individual presents a case of using a person as an end in him. Yes, it is possible that in using other people the benefits of the outcome can be shared with them rather than taking the whole benefit for oneself. We basically derive satisfaction in life because we are living with others, when they enjoy we equally do. Kant Discussion: Lying
In deed, there are circumstances under which a lie would do. The morality of the whole aspect notwithstanding, if one cheats to protect a life, then, though immoral, it is justified. As I move downtown, I meet a rich old woman; she offers me a night with her in her apartment. Because I did not want to appear as rejecting the offer, I promise her to come back after I had sought permission to be away from my parents. Ideally, I cheat because I want to convince her to let go off me. Ultimate it is my well being that informs my decision.
In the end the lies assists me to evade immorality, ideally is circumstance of this nature, and lies would be dully justified. Ethical Egoism Discussion It is indeed appreciable that we should pursue our own course and interest. In addition it should be appreciated that humanity have only one life to live hence giving this simple life supreme importance. Besides, the individual’s life is of ultimate value if the individual has to appreciate others. Vividly we cannot appreciate others when our own life is in turmoil.
In appreciating others, it is evident that we have to pursue our own interests exclusively. Inherently, by doing this we are merely appreciating the fact that our interests are exceptional and should therefore be addressed first. Mills discussion question Mills argued for the greatest happiness for all principle. While, there was an inherent assumption that an individuals’ happiness will mean happiness for all. For mills provided there was no pain and suffering in the life of humanity, then there was happiness.
In addition he believed that this happiness was exhibited by the amount and quality of pleasure. According to Mills our actions are geared towards attaining what we desired. Ideally for Mill, the will of any individual was subject to the desire of the individual. Mill’s approach attaches much satisfaction to pleasure driven by motives of the individual than their desires. Ideally all motives are derived from the human’s basic desires. He believed that if sacrifice would still elicit some pleasure then it was definitely justified. In total the happiness principle for him was overall and overruled.