Ethical Theories: Kant, Rawls, and Moral Frameworks
Ethical Materials and Formal Rationality
Ethical Materials: Purposive rationality (the good and evil are the ends of moral action), priority of happiness, a trend to a heteronomous moral (acting out the nature or God), the goodness is in the contents of the action, hypothetical imperatives language (to act according to maxims that require conditionally) and the Aristotelian tradition. Ethical Formal rationality of ethics (the duty and justice are the criteria for moral action), priority of justice, a tendency to an autonomous morality (act by itself), the goodness is in the form of reason or procedure, language of categorical imperatives (to act according to maxims that require unconditionally and tradition of Kant.
The Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative: Kant was an Enlightenment philosopher who had absolute confidence in human reason and therefore, developed a moral system that applies to all human beings, regardless of tastes and sensibilities. Kant considers the person as an absolute value of any moral (is an end in itself, but never a means). The categorical imperative is unique and works only as a maxim so that you can at the same time it becomes a universal law. Assuming that there is something whose existence in itself possesses an absolute value, something that can be the foundation of several laws, then it would be the basis for a possible categorical imperative (law practice). The practical imperative will work so that you use the humanity in your person and in the person of another, always as an end at the same time and never merely as a means.
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls John Rawls is a classic ethical and political thinker of the twentieth century. His theory of justice is the most important proposal of our time to understand distributive justice in democratic societies. It aims to tackle and overcome utilitarianism by prioritizing responsibility to the good. He proposes a deontological theory of universal principles, inherited from Kant, aiming to reach universal principles to guide decisions on fair rules. It involves an imaginary situation in which members of a society are in an original position, in which there is the condition that these people are covered by a veil of ignorance. They try to decide on the maximin principle: to benefit the worst-off group. His theory is based on two principles: 1. The principle of equal basic liberties or distribution of an equal number of liberties for all. 2. The principle of difference: social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: that they are advantageous to all and that all jobs are accessible by fair equality of opportunity.
Moral Frameworks and Perspectives
Disclaimer: there is no single moral standard or framework from which to judge moral life. Determinism: there is no criterion because there is no moral life without freedom. Nihilism: there is no moral standard, nothing makes sense, except the subject that creates a framework for reference. Subjectivism: although there is no shared view, there are subjective criteria or individual frameworks. Relativism: there is no criterion that does not depend on the situations and the relativity of historical circumstances. Heteronomous Affirmation: There is an objective criterion of morality. The theological frame of reference is determined by the will of God. Ecclesiology: the framework is established by a religious denomination, and to act morally is to comply with its rules. Politics: the framework is established by the political party, the ideological group, or leader of that institution, and to act morally is to establish, obey, and respect the slogans. Sociological: The framework is set by the tastes and customs accepted by the population. Traditionalist: the framework is in the will of the traditions, and to act morally is to comply with them. Statements with Forms of Autonomy: there is an objective moral standard, but its validity depends on the moral autonomy that people embrace. Hedonism: the criterion of morality is in pleasure, and an action is good or bad depending on whether it produces or stops producing pleasure. Eudaemonism: the criterion of morality is happiness, and an action is good or bad depending on the happiness it can provide. Utilitarianism: the criterion of morality is the welfare and the utility that an action provides. Deontology: the criterion of morality is in the process by which a decision is made with justice. Axiology: the criterion of morality is a set of values that guide action. Authenticity: the criterion of morality is established through a dialogue between loyalty to oneself and the recognition of others, so the framework cannot be established without the moral identity of the persons concerned.
Moral Experience and Possibilities
Moral experience as an appropriation of possibilities: The ethics and moral philosophy explore the moral life in which the human being justifies moral experience as an appropriation of possibilities that are made to choose or prefer, with arguments based on criteria for moral action. This helps shape the character with habits of action to guide life toward the good (virtue) or avoid the tendency to evil (vice) and provides a set of standards to guide action.