You are on page 1of 4

THE CRITERIA OF MORALITY

Now that the foundations are given, students in the ethics are once
again challenged by another series of question: which theory in morality is best
applied on each various ethical case? Which presumption dominates over the other?
Are moral speculations valid to all cases? How does one know that the theory
applied is the best among all hypotheses the answer is of a variety of premise and
conclusion. It is so because no definite act is universally applicable to all moral
issues. Despite the various analyses of the moral laws, only the secondary
description is modified, while the primary law of doing good and avoiding evil,
remains the same.
Hence it is the task of the learnersnow that they are rightly introduced
to the building blocks of ethics, to act in response and perhaps, heed into the most
fitting judgment in any given moral situation.

The following are the various measures of morality:

Virtue Ethics. Following the line of thinking by the great western


philosopherAristotle, is the concept of living a virtuous life. To him, the standard of
morality is a life of happiness, and virtue embraces the concept of happiness. This is
so called desirable quality lies in mans attempt to find the Golden Mean or the
Life of Moderation
By moderation, Aristotle speaks of an idea that is neither less nor extreme.
He speaks of moral balance between the mind and the body. Accordingly, in
everything that a man does is a tension between what is less to that of what is
more; man usually either craves enormously to pleasurable objects or reducibly set
them apart. Applying his idea, man becomes immoral if things in life, regardless of
their characteristics, are desired excessively or illicitly, for there exists no proper
orientation of what is absolutely good.

Good then that is which moderately and evil is always in the excess and in the
lack. To study is good, too much of its and too little of it, for instance, is non-good.
Eating is also good but over indulgence and a deficiency of it, makes evil. Thus,
going back to the determinants of moralityparticularly the circumstances of an
act: The How-ness, subsequently influences the immorality of a human act.
Eudemonism which means following the path towards a good and happy
life, is in the above case an orientation of discovering a life of self-control. And this
cannot be taught elsewhere since a life of personal meaning is something that is
only discovered why Aristotles Golden Mean is never universalized. The reason

being is that moderation is always subjective: What is too much and too little for an
individual could be enough for someone.

Epicureanism. Be Merry for tomorrow you die is the moral slogan of


Epicurus. TO him, pleasure is the final good, pain is the fundamental evil. Even so,
pleasure, as the greatest good, is only made possible by a life of humility and
balance desires if this is achieved, one reaches self-composure; level headedness
serenity, self-determination, and freedom form corporal impairment which leads to
happiness in its maximum form.
Despite hedonistic by theoryenunciating pleasures as the only essential
good, its notion of pain as an eventual route worldly enjoyment coupled by a life of
simplicity still makes appealing to some students in ethics.
Stoicism. To avoid lifes filament of suffering an obstacles, morality
should be anchored in the lack of concern (apathy) and indifference, is the mantra
of the stoics. To them, there should be liberation from ones pain Thus, it is in the
logic of the mind and not in the heart that sound moral judgment is maintained
through mental discipline. Below is its basic method
Series of predicaments + being unemotional and inexpressive (avoiding passion)
=immunity to lifes meaningless
Asceticism. The withdrawal of mans desires from any mundane glamour and
unessential accessories in life that lead to happiness, is the watchword of an
ascetic. More so living in the minimum of lifes needs describes a way of; life
branded by frugality, austerity and abstinence from earthly pleasures. Below is its
plain blueprint:
Deprivation from enjoyable objects or denunciation from pleasing things=happiness
and spiritual transcendence
Teleological Theory of Ethics
Teleological from a Greek term telos, meaning end embraces the idea that
morality is determined by the objective purpose or end of a certain human act. And
thus, moral action or moral requirements is only given meaning once the end or
result is good
One famous string in teleology is John Stuart Mill concept of
Utilitarianism. To mill, Utility or usefulness is good standard in ethics, and that it
claims that to generate the greatest possible happiness, there should be stability of
merit over unworthiness in all persons In such maritime paradigmatic whenever
there is a choice between diverse but evenly effective means to remind a cadets
misbehavior, trainees defrayal should be exploited and the outlays and danger are
being minimized.
Much so, as initially motivated by pleasure, this greatest happiness principle also
outlines the following idea:

Absence of pain=Happiness
Pain and privation=Unhappiness
Nonetheless, apart from its eminent status, this theory plugs out its shortcoming.
For one, the utilitarian principle of utility justifies the burden of anxiety and pain on
a small number of people for the sake of the many. Likewise, it unreasonably
challenges the legitimacy of the results taken into account before a moral decision
is to be adjudged as right and wrong. Lastly it disregards the purpose from which
some moral decisions are made outwardly, the evil motive of deception seems to be
morally justified in view of its benefits and enviable consequences
Pragmatism is in the teleological parlance, a theory of knowledge in morality that
holds a valid type of awareness as always sensible, useful, practical, favorable, and
functional. If a proposal thus facilities good results then it is factual and correct.
Truth here is a fragment of knowledge that can provide valuable course to practical
conduct. To William James, Though there are setbacks to this idea namely: a.) its
being too acquisitive (moral ruling is good or true depending upon the financial
concern)
b.) its complexity in shaping reality and its possible outcomes that would in turn
determine the goodness and badness of an act and lastly
c) The expediency of the result which may lead to an impulsive or convenient
judgment of the agent, this theory of knowledge, however, may somehow establish
an efficient means to justify ones moral resolution by taking into consideration the
practical value and benefits of the individuals concerned
Situation ethics/ Situationism. This modern day moral standard promoted by Joseph
Fletcher means that the morality of an act is dependent on a given situation and
that regardless of the condition or circumstances, one finds himself acting upon
Christian Love. A situation in this context refers to a human state of moral affairs or
issues that demands a moral decision. This kind of idea furthermore endorses no
inclinations or injustices in delivering morality on agapeic love (unconditional
Christian Love) Hence, it makes moral decisions bendable and flexible to altering
situations
The main weakness of the standard, however is that advances inconsistency of
applying unconditional love to different circumstances
Deontological Theory in Ethics
Deontological is derived from the Greek terra deontos, meaning obligation of
function. It discards what teleology proposes and that the notion of duty is
autonomous to a good (utility) idea and that correct actions are not determined fully
by the production of amoral goods

Kantian Ethics 02

You might also like