Explain one of the theory making sure to expand upon the main points including the strengths and weaknesses

Anonymous
timer Asked: Dec 12th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $15

Question description

Explain one of the theory making sure to expand upon the main points including the strengths and weaknesses, and explain how this theory can aid us in making ethical decisions The minimum word count for this assignment is 500 words We did not cover Ayn Rand in this class. Her theory of Objectivism is not the same as the theory of Moral Objectivism that we covered. There is no outside research needed for this , but if you choose to do so, please, please make sure that you are looking at correct material. As well, this is not a response, but a short essay exam. As such, I will be looking for evidence that you understand the material. Please do not add your opinions and anecdotes to this. Treat this as a scholarly.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Objectivism  EX: Just War or Act of Terror  Truman vs. Anscombe    Objectivism tells us moral rules have no exceptions. Usually this is linked to religious commands Can Objectivism succeed on its own? Kant believed objectivism could be linked to an idea of moral goodness.  In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil. In fact, he used the term good to describe the ‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act purely in accordance with one’s duty. He believed that, using reason, an individual could work out what one’s duty was. To ascertain the moral worth of an action, we must discover whether it was motivated through duty or through some other inclination. The example of the grocer  “It accords with duty that a grocer should not overcharge his inexperienced customer; and where there is much competition a sensible shopkeeper refrains from so doing and keeps to a fixed and general price,,,Thus people are served honestly; but this is not nearly enough to justify us in beleiving that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty or from principals of fair dealing; his interests required him to do so”  It is in the shopkeeper’s best interests to keep his prices lower than that of his competitor, thus insuring his customer’s business. Therefore his action is not done from duty or any inclination to do good, but only from his self-interest. Consider the joy of giving It is a duty to help others where one can. Yet the person who finds an inner pleasure and sense of well being from giving, acts from self interest, rather than true dedication to duty. Therefore the act, while charitable, does have has as much moral worth as the charitable act done against one’s inclination, but according to duty. An imperative is a statement of command. Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.  A hypothetical imperative tells us what must be accomplished if we desire a specific end result. “If we want to be healthy, then we must exercise.” The hypothetical imperative here is the then statement, “then we must exercise”. A categorical imperative does not require a then statement. A categorical imperative is the means in itself. Ex. “Stop” “Go to bed” “Put down that gun” Kant believes we can use categorical imperatives to decipher universal laws.He states this as follows: I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules that guide action. All actions have maxims, such as,     Never lie to your friends. Never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you. Always watch out for number one. It’s ok to cheat if you need to. How can we universalize maxims? Use the categorical imperative to discover whether or not lying is acceptable. Standard form: We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be applied universally. If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is okay to lie” This rule could not be applied universally because it would be self-defeating. People would stop believing each other and then it would do no good to lie. Therefore, you should not lie. What is the maxim?  It’s ok to cheat when you want/need to? Can this consistently be willed as a universal law?  No, it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends.     Anscombe’s objection: Must we grant (2)? Perhaps we could say, “I will lie when doing do would save someone’s life”. That would not be self defeating. It could become universal law, so Kant’s theory seems to both allow and not allow lying. The Case of The Inquiring Murderer Objection: May we lie to someone proposing to do evil?    Kant’s response: We are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think the consequences of honesty will be bad and the consequences of lying will be good. However we can never be sure of the consequences. The best policy is to avoid known evil and let the consequences come. Even if the consequences are bad, we can avoid responsibility if we have done our duty. Can this argument be applied to Truman? Is it convincing?  What happens when moral commands conflict?  This would seem to disprove moral law. Ex: It is wrong to lie It is wring to facilitate the murder of innocent people. However the conflict is between pairs of moral rules, not the existence of moral rules in general.     Kant requires uniform behavior.  We cannot justify modifications simply because they suit us. The problem lies in his insistence that moral rules be exceptionless. This isn’t necessary. Kant’s system requires that when we violate a rule, we do so for a reason we would be willing to accept from anyone.   The case of the Inquiring Murderer seems to provide such a case. Consider the unhappy man We have a duty to treasure our own happiness. A man becomes sick of his life and wants to end it. He asks whether the maxim of his action (suicide) can become a universal law of nature His maxim is “From self-love I make it my principal to shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure” It certainly seems as though this would conform to the duty to treasure our own happiness. Yet what would be the outcome if everyone were to apply this maxim when happiness is threatened? The Categorical Imperative: Respect for others  Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as means only. We must consider ourselves to be beings who make universal law through the maxims of our will, and must judge ourselves and our actions from this point of view. This leads to the concept of a kingdom of ends. In the Kingdom of Ends, everything has either a price or a dignity. Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value What is relative to human inclinations and needs has a market price. That which can be an end in itself has an intrinsic value; dignity. Fidelity to promises, and kindnesses based on principals (morality) have an intrinsic worth
Objectivism  EX: Just War or Act of Terror  Truman vs. Anscombe    Objectivism tells us moral rules have no exceptions. Usually this is linked to religious commands Can Objectivism succeed on its own? Kant believed objectivism could be linked to an idea of moral goodness.  In the search for intrinsic ‘good’, Kant did not believe that any outcome was inherently good. Pleasure or happiness could result out of the most evil acts. He also did not believe in ‘good’ character traits, as ingenuity, intelligence, courage etc. could all be used for evil. In fact, he used the term good to describe the ‘good will’, by which he meant the resolve to act purely in accordance with one’s duty. He believed that, using reason, an individual could work out what one’s duty was. To ascertain the moral worth of an action, we must discover whether it was motivated through duty or through some other inclination. The example of the grocer  “It accords with duty that a grocer should not overcharge his inexperienced customer; and where there is much competition a sensible shopkeeper refrains from so doing and keeps to a fixed and general price,,,Thus people are served honestly; but this is not nearly enough to justify us in beleiving that the shopkeeper has acted in this way from duty or from principals of fair dealing; his interests required him to do so”  It is in the shopkeeper’s best interests to keep his prices lower than that of his competitor, thus insuring his customer’s business. Therefore his action is not done from duty or any inclination to do good, but only from his self-interest. Consider the joy of giving It is a duty to help others where one can. Yet the person who finds an inner pleasure and sense of well being from giving, acts from self interest, rather than true dedication to duty. Therefore the act, while charitable, does have has as much moral worth as the charitable act done against one’s inclination, but according to duty. An imperative is a statement of command. Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.  A hypothetical imperative tells us what must be accomplished if we desire a specific end result. “If we want to be healthy, then we must exercise.” The hypothetical imperative here is the then statement, “then we must exercise”. A categorical imperative does not require a then statement. A categorical imperative is the means in itself. Ex. “Stop” “Go to bed” “Put down that gun” Kant believes we can use categorical imperatives to decipher universal laws.He states this as follows: I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims, according to Kant, are subjective rules that guide action. All actions have maxims, such as,     Never lie to your friends. Never act in a way that would make your parents ashamed of you. Always watch out for number one. It’s ok to cheat if you need to. How can we universalize maxims? Use the categorical imperative to discover whether or not lying is acceptable. Standard form: We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be applied universally. If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is okay to lie” This rule could not be applied universally because it would be self-defeating. People would stop believing each other and then it would do no good to lie. Therefore, you should not lie. What is the maxim?  It’s ok to cheat when you want/need to? Can this consistently be willed as a universal law?  No, it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends.     Anscombe’s objection: Must we grant (2)? Perhaps we could say, “I will lie when doing do would save someone’s life”. That would not be self defeating. It could become universal law, so Kant’s theory seems to both allow and not allow lying. The Case of The Inquiring Murderer Objection: May we lie to someone proposing to do evil?    Kant’s response: We are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think the consequences of honesty will be bad and the consequences of lying will be good. However we can never be sure of the consequences. The best policy is to avoid known evil and let the consequences come. Even if the consequences are bad, we can avoid responsibility if we have done our duty. Can this argument be applied to Truman? Is it convincing?  What happens when moral commands conflict?  This would seem to disprove moral law. Ex: It is wrong to lie It is wring to facilitate the murder of innocent people. However the conflict is between pairs of moral rules, not the existence of moral rules in general.     Kant requires uniform behavior.  We cannot justify modifications simply because they suit us. The problem lies in his insistence that moral rules be exceptionless. This isn’t necessary. Kant’s system requires that when we violate a rule, we do so for a reason we would be willing to accept from anyone.   The case of the Inquiring Murderer seems to provide such a case. Consider the unhappy man We have a duty to treasure our own happiness. A man becomes sick of his life and wants to end it. He asks whether the maxim of his action (suicide) can become a universal law of nature His maxim is “From self-love I make it my principal to shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure” It certainly seems as though this would conform to the duty to treasure our own happiness. Yet what would be the outcome if everyone were to apply this maxim when happiness is threatened? The Categorical Imperative: Respect for others  Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as means only. We must consider ourselves to be beings who make universal law through the maxims of our will, and must judge ourselves and our actions from this point of view. This leads to the concept of a kingdom of ends. In the Kingdom of Ends, everything has either a price or a dignity. Intrinsic vs. Instrumental value What is relative to human inclinations and needs has a market price. That which can be an end in itself has an intrinsic value; dignity. Fidelity to promises, and kindnesses based on principals (morality) have an intrinsic worth
Definition of Feminism   A commitment to ending the subordination/domination/oppression of women Are there psychological (not physical) differences between men and women?   Do men and women think differently?  Yes answer usually been used to subjugate women to men Aristotle: Women not as rational as men, so naturally ruled by men Kant: Women lack civil personality and should have no voice in public life Rousseau: They possess different virtues, neither better than the others. But it turns out that men’s virtues fit them for leadership and women’s for home and hearth Feminism’s answer to question of whether men and women think differently  They disagree; no unified answer to question of possible psychological differences between women Women’s movement of 60's and 70's rejected psychological differences Supposed differences, e.g., men rational, women emotional--a mere stereotype If see such differences, due to conditioning/up bringing Women have been conditioned by an oppressive system to behave in “feminine” ways Recent feminist thinkers suggested women/men do think differently  Female style of thinking has insights missed in more maledominated thinking By attending to distinctive female approach, new insights can be gained and progress made in areas that were stalled Ethics is good example (feminist ethics) http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_201 1/Feminist_Ethics_Table.htm Famous Harvard education psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg has a scale of moral development that suggests women are less morally developed than men   According to the scale, those who put a focus on relationships, loyalty and trust with people (typical of women) are on a lower level than the typical male approach of appealing to universal ethical principles  Heinz drug stealing story: Shows how girls and boys think differently and girls end up lower on this scale (147-148) Jake thinks like typical male, seeing the situation as a conflict of life/property solved by logic An ethic of principle Male way of thinking abstracts away from details that give each situation its special flavor Men’s moral theories: impersonal duty, contracts, harmonization of competing interests, and calculation of costs and benefits  Amy responds in a typically female fashion and focuses on the personal aspects of situation  Ethic of caring  Intimacy, caring, and personal relationships  Women don’t like to abstract away from detail of situation  Basic moral orientation is caring for others in a personal way, not general concern for all humanity  Sensitivity to the needs of others  Include the points of view of the other in one’s deliberation  Amy couldn’t just reject the druggist’s point of view  Overriding concern with relationship and responsibility Feminist ethics (e.g., Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice) argues for a feminist point of view in ethics and rejects idea that an ethic of care is a lower level of moral development   Caring, empathy, feeling with others, being sensitive to each other’s feelings, may all be better guides to what morality requires in actual contexts than applying abstract rules of reason, rational calculation  At least they are necessary components of an adequate morality   Rachels’ view: The two sexes don’t inhabit different moral universes Even if do think differently about ethics, difference can’t be very great, rather difference in emphasis Also some men prefer caring perspective and some women prefer an ethic of principle Still it could be that in general, women tend to the former and men the latter. How account for this general difference between men and women (if there is such)?  Nurture: Women think differently because of social role to which they have been assigned Been assigned to do the housework and take care of the kids Values of care could be part of this psychological conditioning Nature: Since women are child-bearers, women’s nature as mothers makes them natural care-givers They come equipped by nature with required (care giving) skills 

Tutor Answer

EinsteintheProf
School: Carnegie Mellon University

Hello, check this and inform me whether you need any revision.

1
Running head: OBJECTIVISM THEORY

OBJECTIVISM THEORY
Name of the student:
Name of the professor:
Student’s cass:
Date:

2
OBJECTIVISM THEORY
Objectivism theory
In this paper, there shall have in-depth dissuasion on the Objectivism theory by a Russian
writer named Ayn Rand. In her fiction, Rand expressed objectivism whereby she was inferring to
it as a closed system not subjected to any chance (Rand, 1964). According to Rand, Objectivism
central tenets exists independently uttering that human beings have contact directly aligned to
perceptions hence one can attain knowledge (objective) from perceptions via conceptual
formations to an inductive reasoning. Thus, the moral grounding and purpose of one’s living are
pursuing own happiness with the only system (social) consistent with morality relays respect to
the human rights. Rands’ use of objectivism being an idea that man’s value and knowledge are
objective insinuating their existence are determined by the nature of true. This is discovered from
an individual’s mind and not created by an individual’s thought.
The philosophy behind Rand’s Objectivism theory is on the existence of axioms,
specifically three inclusive of consciousness, existence and identity. According to Rand, an
axiom is a statement identifying knowledge base and any further utterance linked to this
knowledge. She meant that an axiom is a proposition defeating its opponents by the logic that
they have to accept and later use it while in the denial process (Rand, 1988). On the existence
axiom, Rand directs this term to insinuate a perception of self-evidence on facts at bases of all
other knowledge. Consciousness axiom refers to the faculty of perceiving that which is already
in existence. Last axiom identity hails from causation from the act and cause-effect hence in
every action, there is an action to the entity.

3
OBJECTIVISM THEORY
The reasoning behind Rands’ theory of objectivism is that knowledge attaining beyond
the given calls for free will together with adherence to various methods through concept
formations, observations and applying deductive or inductive resonance.
This theory holds various weak points inclusive of where it points out that most issues are
individual thus not true as some of the problems we encounter are communal hence need
solutions linked to communal. Another weak point of Rand’s...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors