Ethics and Moral Action in Philosophy
Moral Action
Only humans are capable of moral actions. This requires determining the scope of morality with two questions:
- What actions are moral?
- What makes actions moral?
The Actions of Man
The actions performed by human beings are not all equally transcendent. Some actions are unconscious, such as digestion, sleep, and breathing, which are not current moral freedoms. Other actions are not morally conscious to be inconsequential, like watching movies or going out. Other actions, such as working or aesthetics, are not moral actions. Moral actions are those that, in addition to being aware and free, impact others and are subject to rules that can be classified as good or bad.
Definition of Moral Action
A moral action is one that occurs in a subject who has to choose between several options that can be assessed from the point of view of good and evil. All free action is moral, but some do not pose moral conflicts; those that arise are whether they lead to reflection.
Characteristics of Moral Action
- Must be free and responsible because you have to have enough freedom to choose.
- Responsible for when we have acted to answer to ourselves, refers to consciousness, which is the ability to realize their actions and judge them as right or wrong.
- Refers to what ought to be, if the action or choice must be properly fit to be morally good.
Origin of Moral Action
Human beings have the ability to choose what can and should be. This is called moral Zubiri structure. Some actions are more correct than others, so humans are justified and appeal to a certain system of moral rules, which Aranguren called moral content.
Distinction Ethical-Moral
Definition of Moral
Morality is the set of codes governing the conduct of a community from the point of view of goodness or evil. But these codes are established by customs and not by reflection.
Definition of Ethics
Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, not ethics and practical ethics rules.
- Ethics is the philosophical inquiry legislation seeking to defend a set of ethical principles.
- Ethics is critical the rational explanation of moral experience. What she says about the moral norms to be valid and exists in any society.
Aristotle: Eudaimonia as the Highest Good
The concept of Aristotelian ethics is the view of the good as well, purpose. When we see the concern for human happiness, the practical nature of this idea is exposed.
The Development of Rationality as the Basis of Eudaimonia
The observation of nature leads Aristotle to the conclusion that every fundones performs according to its constitution and its purpose. The human constitution is rational, and purpose leads to improvement. Happiness consists in carrying out human tasks; through its thinking activity, it can fully display the happy condition of being human. Happiness is a rational actividad. He defines the human soul, and its contemplation is the basis of happiness. Aristotle defined happiness in the circumstances that might favor it, i.e., virtues besides the subject must possess external goods.
Ethical Virtues and Eudaimonia
Happiness is not only identified with virtue, but it is inseparable from her and habits that make it possible. Virtue will pour qualities and dispositions in the soul, but also the acquisition of habits of conduct and moral construction of human beings. Human beings are not born virtuous or are living with theories but with moral virtues and intellectual virtues. The intellectual virtues are in the area belong to the intellectual and understanding can be developed through the study. The moral virtues are acquired through practice are defined as excellence of character and moral develop the habit as the strength of the fly, etc.
The Virtues as Average
For Aristotle, there is no middle. The virtue of old has said that is the average of the balance between two extremes.
The Hedonism of Epicurus: Development
Epicurus believes that the supreme good is happiness or equanimity or restlessness of the soul. Everything is good to make us happy: joy and no pain. For Epicurus, there are two kinds of pleasures: pleasures in motion and pleasures at rest. The pleasures in motion are those of the senses and the elimination of pain. He considers himself superior to the pleasures at rest because we need this to achieve happiness, said that the pleasure and purpose of all life happy, but not all are valid. Pleasures are natural and necessary, natural and necessary pleasures and delights that are neither natural nor necessary and should avoid it.
The Gods
One of the causes of suffering is the theme of the gods. Rites society imposes to prevent convictions, saying that the gods exist but are far away but not our petitions and issues are going to help, but they are happy because they managed the serenity of mind, free from disturbance and whether to intervene in the world would lose their happiness.
Death
Death is another source of pain because we have an idea of it negative and painful. We instill fear and rejection and hope. For the human being is fragile because it is irreversible, and this produces anxiety has said that unlike the gods of death, no doubt it is real.
Kant’s Ethics
Kant’s intentions, the idea formalistic ethics contains a discussion to discover the conditions of any ideal. The philosopher’s mission tells men what is right and what is wrong, fix a moral ideal. But he says that no one can establish a moral doctrine of eternal and absolute value, a final moral because people have their own ideal. For him, ethics is to discover the conditions that must be met by any moral ideal.
Goodwill
He says there is nothing good except the good will, the intention of the people and not the consequences.
The Duty
The motive of goodwill is the line of duty for the sake of duty. A fact is not good to do it correctly but for your mobile altruistic.
The Moral Law
The duty is present through obedience to a moral law, trademark law is a set of precepts that I can set up and want them to be obeyed.
The Logos Universal
The theoretical basis of Stoic ethics lies in its claim that everything in nature is subject to law (logos) universal. Nothing can escape the necessity of nature. The result destination is the established order, which, as directed primarily to an end, it is a providence and universal order. As order is right, the acceptance of fate becomes the proper attitude. The virtuous man is not rebels against fate, calmly accepting what was given because he understands that to happen.
Freedom and Ataraxia
However, all being given, what is human freedom? In the necessity consciousness, which has a practical performance: that nonchalance. Therein lies all the dignity and freedom of man: to know the right order of the world and be conscious part cord. This is the advantage of the ignorant wise, which gives the state of equanimity, the state of happiness that is the Stoics: he knows that everything is determined. Thus then, the man has only one single possibility of parole, which is none other than the collaborate, i.e., the attitude to live in accordance with nature: “Whoever wants himself, the latter carries the destination who do not want, fate draws him” (Seneca).
Virtue
Therefore, the purpose of man is to live in accordance with nature. This is reasonable, and virtue consists in abiding by this, and this gives us harmony and happiness. All we have is indifferent. Neither goods nor evils are nothing in themselves and, therefore, neither the first nor should be sought avoided the latter. Only the behavior according to nature can ensure personal satisfaction.
Apathy as an Ideal
The ideal is apathy, which is the liberation of things that can affect, pleasure, hatred, desire, and fear. This is achieved by using reason (logos). Alone can lead to real understanding, let us see that material possessions have no value for happiness. Virtue consists in understanding the value of things. It is essential for happiness, is knowledge, and can be taught.
The Cosmopolitan
The Stoics considered a dictate of reason to live in society and participate in public affairs. All men have a common nature, which is the reason. Hence there should be only one law for all men, and they all have a single country. The man (sage) is not a citizen of this or that particular State, but the world.
The Categorical Imperative
However, because the human will is not holy, moral law for men takes the form of imperative. The human will is not so constituted and always full conformity with the laws of reason but is also influenced by other impulses or inclinations that are not in accord with reason. For this reason, the moral law, an objective principle of reason, it has the will to press perceived the moral law as a mandate as an imperative. Kant distinguishes this hypothetical imperatives categorical: they are prescribing a mandatory hypothetical action as good or necessary to achieve some purpose, its formula is “must do such and such a thing if …”, are categorical imperatives are not limited by any conditions, its shape is “must do such and such.” The moral law of Kant will obviously have the form of a categorical imperative, since, as we have seen, his duty is for love of duty, and not as a condition for return to get something.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
According to this author, The society can be understood as a set of individuals. The benefit of each of these individuals is their happiness, and it can be added and calculated in line with possible feelings of pleasure or pain. The concepts of good and evil must be, therefore redefined in terms of pleasure and pain. The central proposition of Bentham’s utilitarianism is, in this sense, the only consistent rational criterion we have to guide the action evaluation of painful consequences of any particular action, and that the meaning of the value expressions only be understood in this context. There is no other possible rational approach, it, for reasons:
- For the logical impossibility of a metaphysical theory of moral
- On the basis that psychology provides the principle set