ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Philosophy of moral

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
Darul Arqam boarding islamic school
Darul Arqam boarding islamic school

This document provides an overview of moral philosophy, outlining its key areas and questions. It discusses meta-ethics, which examines the nature of morality, and normative ethics, which analyzes moral codes and theories like utilitarianism and deontology. Applied ethics involves applying ethical principles to real dilemmas. The document also addresses objections to deriving morality from religion and analyzes non-cognitivist and error theories in meta-ethics. It concludes that utilitarianism's focus on increasing happiness makes it a principled, universal, and ideal moral system.

1 of 15
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’ • 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, OR 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 Moral Realist Believes that moral Believes that moral judgments express truth. Cognitivists add these truths can be known. 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
A more sophisticated Non-Cognitivist position : Moral judgments as prescribing courses of action Moral judgments are not descriptive Prescripti - vism 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 Utilitarianism • It’s normative consequentialist ethic. • It holds that acts are right that if they increase utility or can be understood as happiness. Kantian ethics • 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. Aristotelian 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)
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

More Related Content

Philosophy of moral

  • 1. Philosophy of Moral Gigay Citta A. Ginan Aulia R. Labib Wildan Rokhim Faudzami Syahrir Alkindi
  • 2. 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?
  • 3. ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ • 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, OR Can there be absolute moral rules ? All moral decisions relative, dependent upon circumstances, feelings, or desires?
  • 4. On Right and Wrong
  • 5. 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.
  • 6. Another objection… Why ‘for our own comfort’ reason is not in line with the attempt of morality to appeal to a concern for others?
  • 7. II. The Division of Moral Philosophy Meta-ethics Normative ethics Applied ethics
  • 8. Q : What is Meta-Ethics talking about? A : it’s about the general nature of morality Moral Realist Believes that moral Believes that moral judgments express truth. Cognitivists add these truths can be known. 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
  • 9. A more sophisticated Non-Cognitivist position : Moral judgments as prescribing courses of action Moral judgments are not descriptive Prescripti - vism Prescriptivism
  • 10. 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.
  • 11. Q : If Meta-ethics is about general nature of morality, what about Normative ethics? A : It’s about the actual moral codes Utilitarianism • It’s normative consequentialist ethic. • It holds that acts are right that if they increase utility or can be understood as happiness. Kantian ethics • 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. Aristotelian 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)
  • 12. Q : Applied ethics? What is it about? A: It’s about considering real ethical dilemmas and applying ethical principles to them.
  • 13. 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.
  • 14. 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.
  • 15. 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