1: How does reason influence moral judgments?
Kohlberg in his studies on judgment and morality describes a dichotomy in the methods used to reach moral judgments, i.e. that there are two approaches: the influence of reason and the influence of emotion, and reiterates the long-held question of which influence generally determines moral judgments. Kohlberg lands on the side of Immanuel Kant and Jean Piaget in agreement that moral judgment comes predominately from reason rather than emotion which is counter to the Humean objection which is that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Humes, 1738, p. 415). Kant on the other hand believed reason to be the …show more content…
the theory of natural law theory of morality, and the nature law theory of positive law. The two differ namely in that one is concerned namely with the morality of actions, and the other concerned with whether an action is legal or illegal, respectively. There is a popular biblical phrase which deals with this: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, 21st Century King James Version) which reveals the theoretical separation of the laws of man (positive law), and the laws of god (morality) going back thousands of years. Black’s Law Dictionary defines positive law as “legislature that consists of guidelines, statutes and codes which are imposed upon a country. It is dissimilar to natural law.”, with natural law being, as defined by Taylor (1755) “The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature.” (Taylor, p. 99) therefore setting up the distinction as concisely put above, that positive law is considered the law of man or man-made laws of government, and natural law being the laws of morality. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. (1963) on how the two intersect, “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in …show more content…
on either punishment of on restoration of the accused. Within the United States we by and large have the former of the two, our justice system is focused significantly more on the punishment aspect of justice in retaliation to infractions against the law. However other focuses do exist. Many countries have explored the possibility of rehabilitation and restoration in their justice to reintroduce accused criminals into society so as to enable them to refrain from further infractions: in this it is perhaps the same as punitive justice, the method however differs in whether fear of further reprisals is the influence to refrain from crime, or if the equipment of new abilities and mindsets to counter criminal thought and action is more correct or more effective. In Southern Africa amongs the Bantu peoples there exists a unique perspective on this centered around the concept of ‘Ubuntu’ which is literally just the quality of being human, but beyond that as revealed in the common Bantu phrase as quoted in the Huffington Post by Reverand William Flippin Jr. (2012) “‘Ubuntu ngumtu ngabanye abantu’ (‘A person is a person through other people’). This African proverb reveals a world view that we owe our selfhood to others [….] Ubuntu is, at the same time, a deeply personal philosophy that calls on us to
Kohlberg in his studies on judgment and morality describes a dichotomy in the methods used to reach moral judgments, i.e. that there are two approaches: the influence of reason and the influence of emotion, and reiterates the long-held question of which influence generally determines moral judgments. Kohlberg lands on the side of Immanuel Kant and Jean Piaget in agreement that moral judgment comes predominately from reason rather than emotion which is counter to the Humean objection which is that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” (Humes, 1738, p. 415). Kant on the other hand believed reason to be the …show more content…
the theory of natural law theory of morality, and the nature law theory of positive law. The two differ namely in that one is concerned namely with the morality of actions, and the other concerned with whether an action is legal or illegal, respectively. There is a popular biblical phrase which deals with this: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, 21st Century King James Version) which reveals the theoretical separation of the laws of man (positive law), and the laws of god (morality) going back thousands of years. Black’s Law Dictionary defines positive law as “legislature that consists of guidelines, statutes and codes which are imposed upon a country. It is dissimilar to natural law.”, with natural law being, as defined by Taylor (1755) “The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature.” (Taylor, p. 99) therefore setting up the distinction as concisely put above, that positive law is considered the law of man or man-made laws of government, and natural law being the laws of morality. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. (1963) on how the two intersect, “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in …show more content…
on either punishment of on restoration of the accused. Within the United States we by and large have the former of the two, our justice system is focused significantly more on the punishment aspect of justice in retaliation to infractions against the law. However other focuses do exist. Many countries have explored the possibility of rehabilitation and restoration in their justice to reintroduce accused criminals into society so as to enable them to refrain from further infractions: in this it is perhaps the same as punitive justice, the method however differs in whether fear of further reprisals is the influence to refrain from crime, or if the equipment of new abilities and mindsets to counter criminal thought and action is more correct or more effective. In Southern Africa amongs the Bantu peoples there exists a unique perspective on this centered around the concept of ‘Ubuntu’ which is literally just the quality of being human, but beyond that as revealed in the common Bantu phrase as quoted in the Huffington Post by Reverand William Flippin Jr. (2012) “‘Ubuntu ngumtu ngabanye abantu’ (‘A person is a person through other people’). This African proverb reveals a world view that we owe our selfhood to others [….] Ubuntu is, at the same time, a deeply personal philosophy that calls on us to