Morality and the Theories of.
At first thought the idea of morality seems to be universally known. In most civilized societies, when asked, most people can give you an answer on what is moral and what it means to be moral. A descriptive definition of morality as written by Gert and Bernard says that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual.”(1) So even in our own societies for every one’s answer on morality there are others who might not agree with that point of view. Does that mean one lack morals or the ability to understand what morality really is or do they simple have a different view on morality? Both …show more content…
So in deciding on what’s right or wrong we simply need to just know if the result is more good or bad. This is the idea of utilitarianism as first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later expounded on by John Stuart Mill. Mill theory stated that what makes an action right is that the results promoted the greatest good for the greatest number. Most importantly he further stated that what makes an action good was based off pleasure from the result but not all pleasures have the same worth. Charles D. Kay states that “For Mill, however, not all pleasures were equally worthy. He defined "the good" in terms of well-being (Aristotle 's eudaimonia), and distinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between various forms of pleasure.”(Kay). There are many arguments to this theory but what I think should be most focused on is the idea of the greater good for the greater number. During World War II, Adolf Hitler put in motion the genocide of the Jewish people, killing millions on his quest to rid the world of the Jewish race. In his mind his actions where for the greater good of the people of Germany. His mindset followed the idea of utilitarianism in that the extinction of the Jewish race was for the greater good and in turn would result in greater happiness for his nation and the world. Most societies would condemn murder …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes theory suggests that individuals must give up some individual liberty in order to be provided with self-preservation. Plainly speaking it can be interpreted to meaning that even though I could do something to you I won’t as long as you don’t do it to me. As a result of this thinking we can now construct laws or contracts. According to Lloyd “Hobbes defines a contact as “the mutual transferring of right”(3). So Social Contract Theory is nothing more than a societal agreement that they will limit their rights to something in order to not take that same right away from others. This theory does not try to explain consequences or actions but rather agreements amongst individuals. We can argue that this theory is flawed in the fact that not all people will agree on what liberties they want to give up in order to achieve self-preservation. However, Hobbes explains that the social contracts that we follow are already in place by our society prior to us ever reaching the thought on if it is right or
At first thought the idea of morality seems to be universally known. In most civilized societies, when asked, most people can give you an answer on what is moral and what it means to be moral. A descriptive definition of morality as written by Gert and Bernard says that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual.”(1) So even in our own societies for every one’s answer on morality there are others who might not agree with that point of view. Does that mean one lack morals or the ability to understand what morality really is or do they simple have a different view on morality? Both …show more content…
So in deciding on what’s right or wrong we simply need to just know if the result is more good or bad. This is the idea of utilitarianism as first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later expounded on by John Stuart Mill. Mill theory stated that what makes an action right is that the results promoted the greatest good for the greatest number. Most importantly he further stated that what makes an action good was based off pleasure from the result but not all pleasures have the same worth. Charles D. Kay states that “For Mill, however, not all pleasures were equally worthy. He defined "the good" in terms of well-being (Aristotle 's eudaimonia), and distinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between various forms of pleasure.”(Kay). There are many arguments to this theory but what I think should be most focused on is the idea of the greater good for the greater number. During World War II, Adolf Hitler put in motion the genocide of the Jewish people, killing millions on his quest to rid the world of the Jewish race. In his mind his actions where for the greater good of the people of Germany. His mindset followed the idea of utilitarianism in that the extinction of the Jewish race was for the greater good and in turn would result in greater happiness for his nation and the world. Most societies would condemn murder …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes theory suggests that individuals must give up some individual liberty in order to be provided with self-preservation. Plainly speaking it can be interpreted to meaning that even though I could do something to you I won’t as long as you don’t do it to me. As a result of this thinking we can now construct laws or contracts. According to Lloyd “Hobbes defines a contact as “the mutual transferring of right”(3). So Social Contract Theory is nothing more than a societal agreement that they will limit their rights to something in order to not take that same right away from others. This theory does not try to explain consequences or actions but rather agreements amongst individuals. We can argue that this theory is flawed in the fact that not all people will agree on what liberties they want to give up in order to achieve self-preservation. However, Hobbes explains that the social contracts that we follow are already in place by our society prior to us ever reaching the thought on if it is right or