Theories Of Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy has many questions about what it is and what type of theories are involved when figuring out what the concept of this branch of philosophy are. There are many theories that have been examined when coming upon this branch and yet some have always been questioned on what are the basics of moral philosophy comes from or what it is necessary to prove it or rebuttal it. Theories such as Ethics, Moral Theory, Autonomy, and The Principia Ethica are all traced to be implausible and Morality, Natural Law, Ethical Theory, and Utilitarianism are considered plausible. All these theories have been said to be a development to Moral Philosophy and a lead to many doubtful theories that are implausible that they don't have enough proof to …show more content…
This theory is implausible because it states that people’s treatment of moral goodness and badness of human actions which are the results after making a decision. This is made to be implausible because as people make decisions they don't rely on weather its good or bad and what happens after making a decision because decisions are what they are and one can either gain or lose from it it all depends on what you choose. That’s why this theory seems to be implausible because not every decision is suppose to be right every choice has its own outcome. The theory that makes this plausible is actually a law which is made by Kant and is the law of Natural Law. and natural law is based on the action one takes after decision making such as the aftermath of making the choice what they do and what effects they have on it. Not every choice has to be right nor wrong sometimes it can be both cause it can lead to something ending and something new. Therefore, as moral theory is a person depending solely on a choice that is really unnecessary because as the Natural Law lets people see the outcome of a person’s choice and lets them see weather it was good or bad and what it was suppose to do. Everything is important when it comes to Moral Philosophy because every choice has an outcome it can be for the good or …show more content…
This theory was created by G. E. Moore and is the Principia Ethica. Which is the suggestion that naturalistic fallacy and its significant add certain concept of Utilitarianism and doctrine of moral institution. This states that people use moral institution to better themselves as choices are made by them and they accept what happens after it has been made. As decisions are made one never knows the outcome of that situation one only has the opportunity to either learn from it or use it as an advantage. The thing that makes this plausible is the theory of Utilitarianism which was created by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. this was the idea that every action done is either right or wrong and everything that happens depends on the choice that was made. It is for the fact of using a domino effect whatever happens in one occurrence then will have another effect on something else and is endless. These two theories put together make each other plausible if the Principia ethica was mixed with Utilitarianism back each other up to make themselves plausible and have facts to support them. Furthermore, these two theories can be plausible because as The Principia Ethica is something to make people feel that every decision can serve as a positive or negative way it can still be fixed to be better as the other theory of utilitarianism states that every choice has an