Philosophy of Moral

Gigay Citta A.Ginan Aulia R.Labib Wildan

Rokhim Faudzami Syahrir Alkindi

I. What is it concerned with?

What should/ought

we do?

What is right and wrong ?

On what basis we can choose

different courses of

action?

How do we live a good life?

‘Is’ and ‘Ought’

OR

• Facts say what ‘is’.• Values say what ‘ought’ to be.• Can we ever derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ ?

If there is NO facts can be used to establish morality,

Can there be absolute moral

rules ?

All moral decisions relative, dependent upon circumstances, feelings, or desires?

On Right and Wrong

Objections on Religious Motive

1.

• Those who don’t believe in God still make judgements and think no one should kill another for his wallet and can get away with it.

2.• Murder is wrong in itself, that’s why God forbids it.

3.

• If you think it is wrong to kill, you should want to avoid it because it is a bad thing to do to the victim, not just about consequences of yourself or because you don’t want to offend your Creator.

Another objection…

Why ‘for our own comfort’ reason is not in line with the attempt of morality to

appeal to a concern for others?

II. The Division of Moral Philosophy

Meta-ethics

Normative ethics

Applied ethics

Q : What is Meta-Ethics talking about?A : it’s about the general nature of morality

Believes that moral judgments express truth.

Cognitivists add these truths can be known.

Moral Realist Believes that moral

judgements do not have this objective existence.

Non-Cognitivists, such as Emotivism, holds that moral judgments are no more than expression of an opinion.

Non -Realist

Moral judgments as prescribing courses of

action

Moral judgments

are not descriptive

Prescripti- vism

A more sophisticated Non-Cognitivist position : Prescriptivism

Ethical Theories

Deontological

• Acts are right or wrong depending on the nature of the act itself, not the consequences

Consequentialist

• Things are only wrong if they cause harm.

• Things are right if they make other things better

Virtue-based

• Morality has its basis in the character of the moral agent

• It stresses that being good is a matter of character which is developed.

Q : If Meta-ethics is about general nature of morality, what about Normative ethics?

A : It’s about the actual moral codes

•It’s normative consequentialist ethic.

• It holds that acts are right that if they increase utility or can be understood as happiness.

Utilitarianism

•It’s deontological ethic.

• It holds that we should only follow moral rules which consistently will to hold as universal rules. Not out of any other motive or just habit.

Kantian ethics

•It’s a virtue ethic.

• It holds that the good person develops virtues which lie at a mid-point or ‘mean’ or average between two extremes. e.g. Generosity ( dermawan) is the mean between meanness (pelit) and profligacy (buang – buang uang)

Aristotelian ethics

Q : Applied ethics? What is it about?A: It’s about considering real ethical dilemmas and

applying ethical principles to them.

Conclusion

Thus, We are inclined to say that we are adhere to the Utilitarianism as this system of thought are quite principal, universal, and ideal.

As of being principal as it is meant to be ‘clear’ and fundamentally ( able to be applied to all sorts of human act) : The act would be measured as of being ‘Right’ if the act itself is in the use to portray something that is ‘pushing to the ‘Goodness’’; and vice versa, if it is meant to be such a form development to the human decadency.

As of being universal as it is quite naturally, we as human beings are the representations of morally subject, whoever kind of people we are, regardless what kind of place, time, WE the human beings are always in great demand of good future, happiness, and in the inevitable act to hinder the agony.

And as of being ideal as it DOES deliver such a very eligible point of pursue, and is limitless in its progress. Hence, the ideally aim in Utilitarianism, the trigger point of changing to be the ‘better one’ would always in offer.

Source

• All images from Google Images.

• Thompson, Mel. (2003). Teach Yourself : Philosophy. London: Hodder Headline Ltd.

• Baggini, Julian. (2002). Philosophy: Key Themes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

• Nagel, Thomas. (1987). What Does It All Mean: A very Short Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press