Universal Morality - Grade: B PDF

Preview

Summary

Moral universalism, is the meta-ethical concept which is uniformly applicable to any ethics scheme, or fundamental ethics, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, faith, ethnicity, sexual identity or other characteristics. Moral universalism rejects realism and relativism. Nevertheless, all forms ...

Description

Universal Morality

Moral universalism, is the meta-ethical concept which is uniformly applicable to any ethics scheme, or fundamental ethics, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, faith, ethnicity, sexual identity or other characteristics. Moral universalism rejects realism and relativism. Nevertheless, all forms of moral universalism are not absolutely absolutist nor inherently monistic in value; certain universal forms, for example utilitarianism, are not absolute, and some forms, such as those of Isaiah Berlin, are pluralistic in value (Haidi, 2007). Many faiths have religious universalistic positions, like Christianity and Islam, and interpret their moral structures as being described through a god, hence as absolute, fundamental, ideal and unchangeable. The 1900’s UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a sample of the global movement to bring universality, equal and general moral justice to all people, and moral universalism at least in part provides the framework for contemporary human rights and forms an integral part of a humanist philosophy. The state of freedom is a must plurality. For without liberty morality is absent. Supporters to a universalist approach contend that those who are decent are free; that people who are committed to making bad decisions are compelled to demand liberty. But supporters of a strategy that is pluralist should not assume the opposite: that freedom is an appropriate way to ensure that good will over bad is preferred and to take good care of ourselves while we care for freedom, goodness and beauty (Krebs, 2008). Moreover, it is incorrect to say that it does not matter what is selected if it is honestly chosen. There is freedom to demonstrate accountability and to help make wise decisions. Our sense of morality makes unintentional assumptions of good and wrong, almost immediate, about the acts of others and about ourselves. The sense that they are binding on all is fundamental to these subconscious decisions. However, moral codes are peculiar, conflicting and sometimes bizarre for others when looking through cultures. Such findings lead some thinkers to conclude that there are no universal morals and that what is known as legally binding depends on the society in which we live. Others promoted variants of utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics and morals, but there has not been general philosophical adoption (Bauman, 1998).

There is a general agreement that the genetic and cultural advantages of the cooperation generated by the neurobiology influencing our moral meaning and the moral norms of any given society. In other words, actions that are guided by our moral sense and imposed by moral values in cultural life are components in tactics of collaboration, particularly reciprocal strategies that address social problems resulting from an unrestrained self-interest. Many of the inconsistencies and bizarre cultural morals can be explained by the distinctions between certain individuals who can work with, who should be overlooked or abused and who are part of these in and out groups markers such as food, circumcision, hair, religious items and ideas and sacred authority (Bloom, 2006). The first one is a fundamental ethic that recommends, a moral that is uniformly binding, what everybody has "could." This is a traditional conception of philosophy as "moral universal." The second is what can be shown as cooperative strategies in all morally-relevant cooperation strategies, as all moral systems have in general, without necessarily binding these scientific universals. A society should encourage and promote such a basic morality as best to fulfill its collective needs and desires. A lot depends on what "universal" entails, but let's try to look a little. Firstly, if we consider morals by "universal" to be like the laws of physics, or theorems of mathematics or even the laws of logic, then forget about it (Beauchamp, 2003). To put aside fascinating arguments on the essence of mathematics and philosophy and whether or not their concepts are actually universal, morality is not even a matter of concern. The Latin morals, the term used in the translation of the Greek ethos by Cicero, was "Morality." The Latin term more accurately refers to the practices and customs of a country, while the Greek word refers to the concept of nature. Therefore "morality" deals with the characters of humans and how we communicate in society. Even so, a modern innovation, mainly the Renaissance and especially the concept of Immanuel Kant, is a new, especially Westerner, Sacred concept of morality linked to a Fundamental Code of Conduct, Right and Wrong, (capitalization). And some do not consider it a good thing. Kant tried to make political principles just like Newton's scientific theories. And through pure logic, he felt he should do it. Ignoring any divine guidance on this subject, Kant came to his views as a universal moral logic, his famous categorical imperative: "Act only according to this, in which one will at the same time wish for the moral absolute." Immanuel Kant concluded that the highest moral principle is a morality norm which he called a "Categorical Imperative" (CI) (Hill, 2004). (CI). Kant defined the CI as a concept objective,

logically essential and binding, which, notwithstanding natural wishes or tendencies to the contrary, should always be followed. According to Kant, a particular moral obligation is supported by such a concept, implying that every unethical action is immoral in violation of the CI. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is an objective, absolute and essential justification theory which extends in all situations to all moral individuals. While Kant provides many examples of this concept in the book, he outlines a complex normative philosophy for understanding and applying the CI to human beings in the real world, in later works, particularly in The Metaphysics of Morality. It encompasses different stages, variations and procedures for submitting. Kant defines in particular two subsidiary standards which should address various facets of the CI (Young, 2011). Instead, the Greek Philosophers were much closer to the truth. And ethics has something to do with how and when to create harmonious social relations as reasonably possible, that's why Socrates once said that Spartan and vice versa do not have to do with Athens (Kneller, 2003). But this starts to sound disconcertingly like universal relativism and still, with the exception of the contemporary lawyers and a militant postmodernist, so few of the ancients will fall into this category. The life of the human nature is what rescued ancient ethics from reductionism, and that saved us over two thousand years later when people quit listening to Kant. One thing agreed upon by Socrates, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Cynics and a number of other Greek Roman schools was that humanity is a special kind of animal, and that special characteristic lay mostly in two facets of what it implies to be humans: we are social creatures and rational. This implies that we all rely heavily on each other. As Thomas Hobbes famously put life, it will be bad, dismal, harsh and short life without social ties and support in our lives. The intellect one, does not mean that we behave rationally always. That is the only thing we can do. Ethics thus becomes for the Stoics in particular a question of 'living in harmony with nature' that means not promoting what is natural, but rather taking seriously the two foundations of human nature: sociality and reason (Sendjaya, 2005). "Have what is necessary, and whatever the reason, natural requirements and needs of a social animal," said Marcus Aurelius. There is something which the elderly have neglected to do: they, in particular Aristotle, believed that a teleological mechanism resulted in human nature, that all things work correctly based on the very nature of the universe. People no longer think so, not after Copernicus, and Darwin in particular (Miller,

1994). We realize, though, that human beings are also a specific result of dynamic and irreversible mechanisms of evolution. These mechanisms do not define the existence of a human being, but form a mathematical cluster of characters describing what it means to be human. In essence, this cluster restricts without deciding what kind of activity is pro-social and what kind of behaviors are not. Ethics is a philosophically educated organization that seeks to recognize that difference and to explain it. Since all communities are facing common challenges such as food and refuge, predatory avoidance, health care and child-raising, it is not shocking that Darwin's moral sense is found in our genes' fabrics. The numerous moral formulations found worldwide are the product of the experiences between the genes which are special to one another, those which you share with all other beings, and the obstacles faced by environment for human survival. Morality, then, is normative insofar as the mechanisms and laws needed to govern human actions for the sake of life are in all cultures, but morality in nature is linked to people and human social circumstances are and need to overcome so that they can continue on.

References

Bauman, Z. (1998). On universal morality and the morality of universalism. European Journal of Development Research, 10(2), 7–18. Beauchamp, T. L. (2003). A defense of the common morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. Johns Hopkins University Press. Bloom, P., & Jarudi, I. (2006). The Chomsky of morality? Nature, 443(7114), 909–910. Haidt, J. (2007, May 18). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science. Hill, T. E. (2004). Kant’s Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality. Philosophical Review, 113(2), 272–275. Krebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: An Evolutionary Account. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 149–172. Kneller, J. (2003). Kant’s Search for the Supreme Principle of Morality (review). Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41(4), 564–565. Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural Diversity in the Morality of Caring: Individually Oriented Versus Duty-Based Interpersonal Moral Codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28(1), 3–39. Sendjaya, S. (2005). Morality and leadership: Examining the ethics of transformational leadership. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3(1), 75–86. Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2011, July). Moral universals and individual differences. Emotion Review....