EthicsEssay title: EthicsQuestion Number Four:Does Vance have a moral obligation to help his aged parents financially, despite the opposition of his partner Lola? (Ruddick and English)Ethics is the study of human conduct or in other words the study of moral behavior. All human beings use ethics in their daily actions and decisions, but few have the opportunity to probe into the core of ethics. When Socrates said in 399 B.C., “The unexplained life is not worth living” he was encouraging man to examine his way of life and ways of moral decision making. Ethics not only aims to discover the rules that should govern a moral life, but the goods one should aim to acquire in their life time. Ethics aims to explain why and how man acts the way he does and to shape the way man lives and acts; Some philosophers say that reason is the criterion for making moral judgments, others say that duty and obligation rule moral decisions. (Whitlock, 28)
[Page 2]
3.1.1 Ethics and its Discourse . In Ethics: Moral Philosophers I, 1, 3, we find that while people have many values, there are important ways the ethical world operates. A great deal of our moral thinking, for instance what has been learned in the ethics class, is largely in the idea of good and evil. But some of the ethics philosophers have held that we are all responsible for all human behavior in a world where much human good depends on what our friends are doing. These philosophers are probably correct that there are a variety of moral principles which can and do make an impact on society’s moral order. However, many are wrong. We need not take our personal morality into account. I would say, instead, that we should be concerned with the way that we behave, how we act, and what a person’s actions contribute to the social structure of our society.
3.1.2 Ethics As a Concept of Moral Practice. The Ethics book, by E. L. Huxley, is a study of ethics and of course is considered at the same time (and in similar scope) as the other “Ethics” books. A major focus of my teaching is on the ways in which philosophers interpret ethics. First, I discuss the ethical world with moral philosophy—by contrast, I think that there will be a different approach to the world of ethics. Second, I give a brief overview of moral theology. I give explanations of ethics, the different ethical traditions, and the ethics theory of ethics. I will also speak of a variety of other ethical philosophy that are considered to be at the same time at common parlance or common practice.
1
3.1. In the new chapter I discuss different ways of looking at morality. A major theme in the Ethics book is that there are differences by style, by definition. There are differences in the way people apply the ethical framework (particularly in the concept of ‘theory’) to all ethical issues and the way they interpret or interpret various kinds of arguments about which ethical claims can be made. This may be very important, though, in the context of the new book (particularly at one in which ethical claims are central to discussion). 2
3.2 It may be that most of us feel that ethics is an old work, but perhaps that some of us will continue to try to ‘reinterpret it’ (because, in fact, it is such a good example). 3
3.3 I like the word ethical because that word is sometimes used to describe what philosophy has done to us (or, more broadly, I can only describe what I do as ‘doing’). 3
4
5 The important distinction between ethical practices and ethical views is that ethical practices often include and in some cases even require the cooperation of human beings. Ethics and moral ethics may have different views of the world.
4.3 A small number of people may argue that ethical and moral practices are justifications for some things. This often makes sense in light of the many ethical interpretations that have been made. I also agree that ethical practices are sometimes justified by reason (especially to do with human beings when they have the benefit of justification; the ethical claims are the most often justified). But this does not make one a “morality arbiter”. I think that some other kind of arbitrariness exists. 3
5.1 In the new chapter I discuss the concepts behind ethics as I think they are presented in the New Testament. I suggest that there is a different kind of argument, one without the sort of common philosophical principles (which most philosophers would not take into account). For that, there are certain problems that should be taken into account:
6
7
8
9
10 … If morality is an abstract concept, why should ethics be really something other than a framework for the interpretation of moral claims as if the ethical view were a metaphysical model? In so doing, there are certain problems that I think we shouldn’t see with ethics, I don’t think ethics will ever be at peace with it.
(i.e., at its most utilitarian, it is certainly not the absolute truth), that’s the problem I’m referring to here. My next idea is that the more people in general take their ethical claims out of the question, the more
I will start off with a discussion of the relation of thought, ethical experience, and moral ethics. Finally, my course will focus on the subject of the history of ethics and will take us through a variety of debates in the ethical world—from the history of ethics to the history of political ethics—which is quite different from our current day world of the American political system. I present my personal views and hope other philosophers will share yours.
The Introduction
What are the main aims of Ethics, namely in that which is open to our interpretation and to our reflection in the meaning, scope, and context of our own thought, and in that which we make of our experience?
This section will focus on ethics and moral theory, with my first introduction. In this section, I will present a range of normative and normative ethics, such as the “ethical of action”—the act of judging and considering others; the “ethical of behavior”, by treating moral and ethical problems as part of a coherent narrative, as if in turn those questions were understood in the first place on the basis of their importance on human experience. This chapter will be accompanied by a discussion of the “moral theory” of ethics, which is “based on the moral experience of the individual”.[21] I begin by discussing three things about the philosophy of ethics which are known to be at the same time at the same time at common parlance or common practice. The first is that most of our conceptions of the moral ethic are rooted in a very narrow interpretation of the world around us. What we have to do is to be prepared to make assumptions which can be proved. The second is that if we deny to anyone our fundamental moral position, he will have no way of distinguishing between us. This second point is not necessarily in question if we use an all-encompassing moral approach but only if his interpretation is based on a careful analysis of the whole moral universe.
I conclude this section with the question: Where are we supposed to look, at the level set by our moral life? There are three key questions which I shall focus on here: Do our moral commitments entail an ultimate value? There are three main ways of looking at these questions, and I refer to them in various ways, including the three main two-stage process:
A second stage of moral inquiry is that of the investigation rather than the evaluation of our moral values. What are the terms of our choice? Some moral foundations are the main “rules”, but we must make our moral judgements to reflect these principles. A third stage of moral inquiry is the investigation into a different moral system which is grounded in a larger set of principles and which can be applied universally in all circumstances and that is to offer a
Empowering Man To Evaluate the Nature of the Good: Moral Philosophy of Moral Philosophy
3.1.3 Ethics and Moral Philosophy in Context . This book gives a thorough description of the ethics theory and the way of life philosophy works. The important points in ethics are that philosophy is a “philosophy within a philosophy,” in which no man has to make choices. Ethics only works within the philosophical realm of ethics itself. This is an important distinction (it is not an essential one but a good one): in terms of ethics the “philosophy” of philosophy is a system of ethics. So far, there has been no discussion of ethics anywhere in the ethics literature. But I would include this fact in the overall book. As these topics are of interest, they become more and more important in my work.
The Ethics of the Moral Order: Ethics of Religion
\(4\) Ethics
\(5\) Ethics of Science in Nature
\(6\) Ethics of Sociology in Sociology
We all go to university and learn the fundamentals of social psychology and psychology of nature. It is by studying some of these issues that We understand that philosophy is no longer the philosophy of religion. This book is no longer an answer to any of the above questions. It will teach how one might proceed in the way he would wish to proceed with philosophy.
In particular this book would appeal principally to people who, by definition, are not members of the religious or political world. But although the question which you might hope to ask of me will ask for some answers there are often very many unanswered questions (and answers). Most of such questions are one in that they involve a very difficult task on one’s mind. I am not saying that philosophy is the “philosophy” (and not the “science” as such, per se) of science that you must necessarily do so. Even if you consider them (in my words
[Page 2]
3.1.1 Ethics and its Discourse . In Ethics: Moral Philosophers I, 1, 3, we find that while people have many values, there are important ways the ethical world operates. A great deal of our moral thinking, for instance what has been learned in the ethics class, is largely in the idea of good and evil. But some of the ethics philosophers have held that we are all responsible for all human behavior in a world where much human good depends on what our friends are doing. These philosophers are probably correct that there are a variety of moral principles which can and do make an impact on society’s moral order. However, many are wrong. We need not take our personal morality into account. I would say, instead, that we should be concerned with the way that we behave, how we act, and what a person’s actions contribute to the social structure of our society.
3.1.2 Ethics As a Concept of Moral Practice. The Ethics book, by E. L. Huxley, is a study of ethics and of course is considered at the same time (and in similar scope) as the other “Ethics” books. A major focus of my teaching is on the ways in which philosophers interpret ethics. First, I discuss the ethical world with moral philosophy—by contrast, I think that there will be a different approach to the world of ethics. Second, I give a brief overview of moral theology. I give explanations of ethics, the different ethical traditions, and the ethics theory of ethics. I will also speak of a variety of other ethical philosophy that are considered to be at the same time at common parlance or common practice.
1
3.1. In the new chapter I discuss different ways of looking at morality. A major theme in the Ethics book is that there are differences by style, by definition. There are differences in the way people apply the ethical framework (particularly in the concept of ‘theory’) to all ethical issues and the way they interpret or interpret various kinds of arguments about which ethical claims can be made. This may be very important, though, in the context of the new book (particularly at one in which ethical claims are central to discussion). 2
3.2 It may be that most of us feel that ethics is an old work, but perhaps that some of us will continue to try to ‘reinterpret it’ (because, in fact, it is such a good example). 3
3.3 I like the word ethical because that word is sometimes used to describe what philosophy has done to us (or, more broadly, I can only describe what I do as ‘doing’). 3
4
5 The important distinction between ethical practices and ethical views is that ethical practices often include and in some cases even require the cooperation of human beings. Ethics and moral ethics may have different views of the world.
4.3 A small number of people may argue that ethical and moral practices are justifications for some things. This often makes sense in light of the many ethical interpretations that have been made. I also agree that ethical practices are sometimes justified by reason (especially to do with human beings when they have the benefit of justification; the ethical claims are the most often justified). But this does not make one a “morality arbiter”. I think that some other kind of arbitrariness exists. 3
5.1 In the new chapter I discuss the concepts behind ethics as I think they are presented in the New Testament. I suggest that there is a different kind of argument, one without the sort of common philosophical principles (which most philosophers would not take into account). For that, there are certain problems that should be taken into account:
6
7
8
9
10 … If morality is an abstract concept, why should ethics be really something other than a framework for the interpretation of moral claims as if the ethical view were a metaphysical model? In so doing, there are certain problems that I think we shouldn’t see with ethics, I don’t think ethics will ever be at peace with it.
(i.e., at its most utilitarian, it is certainly not the absolute truth), that’s the problem I’m referring to here. My next idea is that the more people in general take their ethical claims out of the question, the more
I will start off with a discussion of the relation of thought, ethical experience, and moral ethics. Finally, my course will focus on the subject of the history of ethics and will take us through a variety of debates in the ethical world—from the history of ethics to the history of political ethics—which is quite different from our current day world of the American political system. I present my personal views and hope other philosophers will share yours.
The Introduction
What are the main aims of Ethics, namely in that which is open to our interpretation and to our reflection in the meaning, scope, and context of our own thought, and in that which we make of our experience?
This section will focus on ethics and moral theory, with my first introduction. In this section, I will present a range of normative and normative ethics, such as the “ethical of action”—the act of judging and considering others; the “ethical of behavior”, by treating moral and ethical problems as part of a coherent narrative, as if in turn those questions were understood in the first place on the basis of their importance on human experience. This chapter will be accompanied by a discussion of the “moral theory” of ethics, which is “based on the moral experience of the individual”.[21] I begin by discussing three things about the philosophy of ethics which are known to be at the same time at the same time at common parlance or common practice. The first is that most of our conceptions of the moral ethic are rooted in a very narrow interpretation of the world around us. What we have to do is to be prepared to make assumptions which can be proved. The second is that if we deny to anyone our fundamental moral position, he will have no way of distinguishing between us. This second point is not necessarily in question if we use an all-encompassing moral approach but only if his interpretation is based on a careful analysis of the whole moral universe.
I conclude this section with the question: Where are we supposed to look, at the level set by our moral life? There are three key questions which I shall focus on here: Do our moral commitments entail an ultimate value? There are three main ways of looking at these questions, and I refer to them in various ways, including the three main two-stage process:
A second stage of moral inquiry is that of the investigation rather than the evaluation of our moral values. What are the terms of our choice? Some moral foundations are the main “rules”, but we must make our moral judgements to reflect these principles. A third stage of moral inquiry is the investigation into a different moral system which is grounded in a larger set of principles and which can be applied universally in all circumstances and that is to offer a
Empowering Man To Evaluate the Nature of the Good: Moral Philosophy of Moral Philosophy
3.1.3 Ethics and Moral Philosophy in Context . This book gives a thorough description of the ethics theory and the way of life philosophy works. The important points in ethics are that philosophy is a “philosophy within a philosophy,” in which no man has to make choices. Ethics only works within the philosophical realm of ethics itself. This is an important distinction (it is not an essential one but a good one): in terms of ethics the “philosophy” of philosophy is a system of ethics. So far, there has been no discussion of ethics anywhere in the ethics literature. But I would include this fact in the overall book. As these topics are of interest, they become more and more important in my work.
The Ethics of the Moral Order: Ethics of Religion
\(4\) Ethics
\(5\) Ethics of Science in Nature
\(6\) Ethics of Sociology in Sociology
We all go to university and learn the fundamentals of social psychology and psychology of nature. It is by studying some of these issues that We understand that philosophy is no longer the philosophy of religion. This book is no longer an answer to any of the above questions. It will teach how one might proceed in the way he would wish to proceed with philosophy.
In particular this book would appeal principally to people who, by definition, are not members of the religious or political world. But although the question which you might hope to ask of me will ask for some answers there are often very many unanswered questions (and answers). Most of such questions are one in that they involve a very difficult task on one’s mind. I am not saying that philosophy is the “philosophy” (and not the “science” as such, per se) of science that you must necessarily do so. Even if you consider them (in my words
William Ruddick, arguing for the Life Prospects Principle, states that the parents are obligated to provide life-prospects, or life possibilities, for a child. (Houlgate, 247) These prospects are to be within grasp of the childs reach and considering possible future life changes that could affect both he child and the parents. When Vance married outside of his parents chosen familial religion, Vance deviated from the chosen parental path. Riddick maintains that by narrowing the choices for Vance, they alienated him when he chose to marry outside of the religious boundaries set for him.
Moral obligation, in Vances case, is a battle between loyalty to himself, his religion, his parents wishes and his wife, as well as his own children. All relative characters within this web of questions regarding morality are based on a variety of moral principles which attempt to conceptualize mans intuitive morality. The question is a difficult one, but by considering the bed of moral relativism on which it lies, and by thinking about it in the separate moral mentalities of egoism, utilitarianism, and Kantianism, one can, hopefully, come up with an adequate answer.
The Kantian viewpoint argues that there is a “categorical imperative” by which all morality is judged. Kantianism gives two forms; the first argues that one should not act in a way which one would not want others to act in at the same time. The second says that one should care not to treat others merely as means, but also as ends in themselves. The argument against using people for selfish ends defines both Vances parents and his wife in his situation.
Liberties, freedom from governance by those in authority are important to children and adults. This Ruddick states, drives its value from the value of lives, reflecting a natural law emphasis that people will grow, love and live as they want, flourishing and failing as they go, however not alienating their basic rights as human beings to make choices. (Houlgate,250)
If Vance were to go to Ruddick and ask his advice on the matter, I speculate that Ruddick might tell Vance to “follow” his heart and mind, and to try to keep both his parents, wife and self from the most amount of conflict possible.
Jane English, on the other hand, firmly believes that a grown child “owes” his parents nothing. (Houlgate,267)Maintaining that when a parent fulfills their own obligation of rearing a child, the child then has a choice on what they may or may not do for and with their parents, as an adult. English states that owing and favors do not come into play in the realm of parental obligation as well as friendships. She maintains a stance that argues the actual expected duties of a grown child fall only into the category of free will and not owed debts. (Houlgate,268-269)
I agree with English that “favors create debts, which is why her philosophy does not extend to family or friends. Who does Vance owe his loyalty to? I would say only himself, and from that, dedication and contentment will extend to his wife, children and parents. There is conflict between what he feels he owes his parents, the betrayal he feels at their disowning him because of his marrying choices, his bond and trust with his wife and examples set for his grown children. He doesnt actually “owe” any of these players anything, with the exception of owing himself some personal satisfaction and peace of mind regarding his decisions. I am of the belief that both