The Ultimate foundation of Morality in Ethics (Philosophy)?
Can someone here with Philosophy major/master or into philosophy or a philosopher help me with this. can someone explain this to me easily? or understandable thanks!
William Provine said, "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life and no free will for humans either." Is there an ultimate foundation for ethics beyond our evident desire to have one?
Dr. Provine is an honest man. He understands that if there is no transcendent reality, then there is no basis for ethics. In this circumstance, human behavior is of no more significance than any other natural event. Both the Permian Extinction and the latest mass murder have the same ethical significance: none. No amount of hand waving or sophistry can construct a rational basis for moral law from a purely naturalist understanding of reality. The natural world provides us with laws (Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, entropy will always increase, etc). But nowhere in this matrix of laws and constants is there any hint of objective standards we might call ethics or morals. To the extent that we are products of a purely natural world, our behavior can have only the ethical content we make up as we go along. In this, humans cannot be faulted for a lack of effort. From the earliest times to the present, humans have attempted to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to some higer "ethical" status. To what end? In just the last century, we have Nazism, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, plus dozens of smaller outrages. Apologist arguments along the lines of "it's them, not us" will not work. The rogues' gallery is populated by theists, atheists, uneducated and educated. Every contemporary culture exhibits some or all of the following behaviors: homicide, infanticide, theft, deceit, involuntary servitude, torture and so on. In most cases, the offence is wrapped in euphemism and offered on the alter of a higher cause. The rather bleak Judeo-Christian assessment of humankind is spot on. If this written tradition is the product of some historic conspiracy to sell an "imaginary friend", one might have expected them to do a better job of polishing up his chosen ones. But I digress.This is not a defense of the existence of a creator God, nor is it a denial. It is simply the observation that in the natural world as presented by thinkers such as Dr. Provine, there is no room for discussion of objective ethics.Sleep tight
What is your foundation of morality/ethics? Does it require a belief in a god?
My belief in morality/ethics is founded upon what is best for the “social contract.” Which enables groups of different peoples to successfully live together in social, economic and political harmony. Plus, what is also best for the other life forms on this planet.And for the future of Homo Sapiens.Belief in a specific version of a god appears to create disregard for the social contract and engenders the suppression of the right of other people to believe whatever they prefer, within the social contract. Especially when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.My morality is also founded upon the concept that what I wish to be done to me should also be done by me to others. And that legally, no one is superior or inferior to myself.
What is utilitarian moral maxim?
the greatest good for the greatest number. maximize the utility (measure of well being) of the total population. wikipedia Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome: put simply, the ends justify the means. Utility, the good to be maximised, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance. Originally described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number", its advocates eventually dropped "the greatest number".[1] Utilitarianism can thus be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. In his essay On Liberty, as well as in other works, John Stuart Mill argues that utilitarianism requires that political arrangements satisfy the "liberty principle" (or harm principle), according to which "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." JS Mill: The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. - utilitarianism, by js mill.
The ultimate goal of Kant's philosophy?
[Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics] What does he do that others (Descartes to Hume) didn't? I just need a basic idea of this. Any help is greatly appreciated!
Philosophy Essay Question?
What is Ethical Relativism? What do you take to be the best argument for its truth? What is the strongest objection to this argument, and can this objection be satisfactory met?
What are the sources of morality according to philosophy?
Philosophers by and large do not agree with all other philosophers as to the ultimate sources of moral authority — that’s why they’re philosophers! Perhaps the one thing all philosophers have in common is that they never resort to “That’s just the way I was raised” but try to look to reason and logic.There are a series of different answers, depending on whom you’re talking to:Some start out with the assumption that goodness or evil inheres in good or evil consequences (such as pleasure or pain). They therefore evaluate an act by its consequences, and use reason to figure out which acts are therefore good or bad. These people are often called Utilitarians. One common formulation is “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”Others, such as Kant, also see rational thinking as the ultimate basis for determining whether an act is good or evil, but they go beyond the consequences, and instead try to find morality in the principle of reasoning behind the act itself. This is the basis for Kant’s categorical imperative, which asks: “Can the principle behind my action be, without self-contradiction, a universal law?”Some philosophers will appeal to a just and merciful God as the basis for morality, but this tends to be limited to Catholic philosophers such as Aquinas and Augustine. This line of thinking is circular, however, as Plato pointed out in his Euthyphro dialogue and therefore tends to be weak.Most recently, there seem to be a growing number of philosophers who claim that the foundation of morality is ultimately subjective. think this puts them in a shaking position, as, according to their own principles, they can never say an act is truly immoral, only that it violates their own particular sensibilities.
How do you understand, or interpret ethical moral idea and standards? Are ethical (moral) ideas and standards relative or objective?
Principles can be deduced from the Golden Rule and can be understood via experience, intuition, and by asking directly. Those seem to provide more than enough basis to move in the direction of ethics and respect and fairness, and away from their opposites. Its not necessarily about getting it 100% perfect the first time, but to have the intent to do good and find out what would actuallyThis is about honoring people’s needs, perhaps in the face of their wants—at least in terms of a long term needs and short term wants conflict. That is you are looking after their best interests. This isn’t ignoring their wants—but I suppose understanding them in a bigger context—one which understands their ultimate values and ultimate objectives not just a 24 second or 24 hour period of time.Principles like the following seven principles are pretty agreed on:Resect (and Human Dignity)KindnessFairnessHonestyKeeping commitments and promisesDo no intentional harmForgivenessSo they are more on the objective side of things, and less on the subjective side of things.I wrote a similar list here: Nathan Ketsdever's answer to Is it right, that beyond all human morality, the only one absolute commandment exists as follow, "do not hurt anybody, physically or mentally”?