cant predict whether an action is right or wrong prior to
event- action over consequence
Thomas Nagel
there are limits on how we treat others, expect to treated and our
oblilgations however we're unable to say why
some take fundamentalist approaches and others argue that its rooted in judeo christian tradition
Judeo is outdated and vague
Good action=good, wrong action=wrong
focuses too much on avoiding wrong, being obedient not moral
actions must come from an unquestionable source
Kant
'man come of a age'
you have to have the correct motivation to fulfill a morally good action- some argue that it is our obligation to be moral
in rare cases someone who has broken a moral law can still be moral- as they had the correct motivation
duties are absolute- ignore emotions
a good action can cause bad consequence- still moral
catergorical imperative= actions performed to achive a desired end
'you should'/'you outght'
hypothetical imperative=moral actions you should do
universability
3 maxims
act as if you live in the kingdom of ends
treat humans as ends in themselves
the universal law
prima facie duties
W.D.Ross
disagrres with Kant:
it is inchoerant to say we act out of motivation- it is incoherant/ we cant choose why we act only how
benefience, self improvement and treating people justly also important
we don't know its a prima facie duty unitl its happening
middle path
evaluation
strenghts
humanitarian approach-everyone is equal and worthy
justice is absolute
proivdes objective guidelines
motivation over consequence
weaknesses
moral obligations appear arbitrary - decision making is influenced by many facctors and it is questionable whether duty is as good as a motive
as suggested
when taken to an extreme the principle is absurd. not all things if universalised would be moral. e.g. all girls have to wear pink ontuesday'- not moral