It can be quite overwhelming to read about various moral theories from multiple sources, which leaves people wondering what is worth accepting or disproving. James Rachels presented a rather convincing ethical theory that correlated with his own understanding of this topic. This was explained further in The Elements of Moral Philosophy's final chapter (13).
Utilitarianism was reminiscent of this theory by James, as it perpetuates on the concept of a person's freedom to choose, as well as the moral implications and value of treating an individual in way he or she deserves. It may be worth noting that these two concepts adhere to the subject of respecting people, as emphasized by Kant.
Rachels discussed certain guidelines involving moral theories …show more content…
In fact, these moral theories we read about have been in existence for a while. These also depict an element of internal validity, along with the presence of classical theories in them.
Rachels also discussed about ethics as an outcome of reason. While it may be evident in several theories, this was not always the case. It appeared that he was disdainful of theories not rooted from the periods of Enlightenment and Revolution.
Another topic he touched on was Psychological Egoism, and Rachels concluded that this theory brought nothing but a non-factual image of both the human condition and human nature. He backed this notion by his understanding that it would be impossible for reason to demand so much more than what humans can handle.
The truth is that humans have aspirations, desires, hopes, and needs whether "the universe" considers these as necessary or not. Thus, Psychological Egoism accounts for every single outcome that reason has brought to us. Human actions can be linked to this theory, and there is no possibility for such to be claimed as …show more content…
We extend greater acts of kindness towards a friend who has helped us in the past as a means of expressing our gratitude. On the other hand, those who hold grudges against someone who have offended them in the past will act in a resentful manner.
Rachels also addressed the topic on motives. He claimed that a "philosophical idiot" would consider eliminating from his or her system virtues such as love and loyalty from our concept of the moral life. The author also expressed that humans would be in a worse situation supposing they merely make calculations of what is best to do.
Humans have a tendency to be frustrated or uplifted, and at the same time, we are responsible for our actions and behaviors. When Rachels implied how it is impossible for love and friendship to be separated from morality, his argument appeared to be rather invalid. After all, we first consider how we should talk or act in front of others, so we can be sure our conduct would not be detrimental to our reputation, as well as our
Utilitarianism was reminiscent of this theory by James, as it perpetuates on the concept of a person's freedom to choose, as well as the moral implications and value of treating an individual in way he or she deserves. It may be worth noting that these two concepts adhere to the subject of respecting people, as emphasized by Kant.
Rachels discussed certain guidelines involving moral theories …show more content…
In fact, these moral theories we read about have been in existence for a while. These also depict an element of internal validity, along with the presence of classical theories in them.
Rachels also discussed about ethics as an outcome of reason. While it may be evident in several theories, this was not always the case. It appeared that he was disdainful of theories not rooted from the periods of Enlightenment and Revolution.
Another topic he touched on was Psychological Egoism, and Rachels concluded that this theory brought nothing but a non-factual image of both the human condition and human nature. He backed this notion by his understanding that it would be impossible for reason to demand so much more than what humans can handle.
The truth is that humans have aspirations, desires, hopes, and needs whether "the universe" considers these as necessary or not. Thus, Psychological Egoism accounts for every single outcome that reason has brought to us. Human actions can be linked to this theory, and there is no possibility for such to be claimed as …show more content…
We extend greater acts of kindness towards a friend who has helped us in the past as a means of expressing our gratitude. On the other hand, those who hold grudges against someone who have offended them in the past will act in a resentful manner.
Rachels also addressed the topic on motives. He claimed that a "philosophical idiot" would consider eliminating from his or her system virtues such as love and loyalty from our concept of the moral life. The author also expressed that humans would be in a worse situation supposing they merely make calculations of what is best to do.
Humans have a tendency to be frustrated or uplifted, and at the same time, we are responsible for our actions and behaviors. When Rachels implied how it is impossible for love and friendship to be separated from morality, his argument appeared to be rather invalid. After all, we first consider how we should talk or act in front of others, so we can be sure our conduct would not be detrimental to our reputation, as well as our