...volve more than expressions of our individual emotions Metaethical ansers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the ill of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, hich is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and rong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that e should acquire, the duties that e should follo, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear ar. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction beteen metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, hich are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, here do rights come from and hat kind of beings have rights Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical sciences. The principal idea ith hich Aristotle begins is that there are differences of opinion about hat is best for human beings, and that to profit from ethical inquiry e must resolve this disagreement. He insists that ethics is not a theoretical discipline e are asking hat the good for human beings is not simply because e ant to have knoledge, but because e ill be better able to achieve our good if e develop a fuller understanding of hat it is to flourish. In raising this question, hat is the good Ethics in ancient times signified moral philosophy philosophia moral is generally, hich as also called the doctrine of duties. Subsequently it as found advisable to confine this name to a part of moral philosophy, namely, to the doctrine of duties hich are not subject to external las for hich in German the name Tugendlehre as found suitable. Thus the system of general deontology is divided into that of jurisprudence jurisprudentia, hich is capable of external las, and of ethics, hich is not thus capable, and e may let this division stand.Aristotle is not looking for a list of items that are good. He assumes that such a list can be compiled rather easily most ould agree, for example, that it is good to have friends, to experience pleasure, to be healthy, to be honored, and to have such virtues as courage at least to some degree. The difficult and controversial question arises hen e ask hether certain of these goods are more desirable than others. Aristotles search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest good, hatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that e acquire, hich regulate our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the virtue of courage hich allos me to be firm hen facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean beteen more extreme character traits. ith courage, for example, if I do not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of coardice, hich is a vice. If I have too much courage I develop the disposition of rashness hich is also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean beteen extreme character traits. In fact, e need assistance from our reason to do this. But he rejects Platos idea that training in the sciences and metaphysics are a necessary prerequisite for a full understanding of our good. hat e need, in order to live ell, is a proper appreciation of the ay in hich such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and ealth fit together as a hole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular cases, e must acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, hich course of action is best supported by reasons.Epicurus, one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period, developed an unsparingly materialistic metaphysics, empiricist epistemology, and hedonistic ethics. Epicurus ethics is a form of egoistic hedonism. He says that the only thing that is intrinsically valuable is ones on pleasure anything else that has value is valuable merely as a means to securing pleasure for oneself. Hoever, Epicurus has a sophisticated and idiosyncratic vie of the nature of pleasure, hich leads him to recommend a virtuous, moderately ascetic life as the best means to securing pleasure. For Epicurus, pleasure is tied closely to satisfying ones desires. He distinguishes beteen to different types of pleasure moving pleasures and static pleasures. Moving pleasures occur hen one is in the process of satisfying a desire eating a hamburger hen one is hungry. These pleasures involve an active titillation of the senses, and these feelings are hat most people call pleasure. Hoever, Epicurus says that after ones desires have been satisfied, the state of satiety, of no longer being in need or ant, is itself pleasurable. Epicurus calls this a static pleasure, and says that these static pleasures are the best pleasures. Because of the close connection of pleasure ith desire-satisfaction, Epicurus devotes a considerable part of his ethics to analyzing different kinds of desires. If pleasure results from getting hat you ant and pain from not getting hat you ant, then there are to strategies you can pursue ith respect to any given desire you can either strive to fulfill the desire, or you can try to eliminate the desire. For the most part Epicurus advocates the second strategy, that of paring your desires don to a minimum core, hich are then easily satisfied. Moral philosophers, such as Kant, Hume, and Mill, derive moral principles in various ays. Kant consults the requirements of a consistent reason to determine the right principles that ought to govern human action. Hume appeals to a moral sense that seems to recognize and capture hat e determine is the right decision and action. Mill considers the human experience to determine hat all humans and some animals desire-happiness he concludes, therefore, that actions causing the greatest possible amount of happiness are right actions. Each moral philosopher considers their ethical theory to be morally superior to alternative ethical theories. I shall use the term ethical monism to refer to the vie that there is one right ay to judge the morali...
Download