Moral Agency, Commitment, and Impartiality

1996 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neera K. Badhwar

Liberal political philosophy presupposes a moral theory according to which the ability to assess and choose conceptions of the good from a universal and impartial moral standpoint is central to the individual's moral identity. This viewpoint is standardly understood by liberals as that of a rational human (not transcendental) agent. Such an agent is able to reflect on her ends and pursuits, including those she strongly identifies with, and to understand and take into account the basic interests of others. From the perspective of liberalism as a political morality, the most important of these interests is the interest in maximum, equal liberty for each individual, and thus the most important moral principles are the principles of justice that protect individuals' rights to life and liberty.According to the communitarian critics of liberalism, however, the liberal picture of moral agency is unrealistically abstract. Communitarians object that moral agents in the real world neither choose their conceptions of the good nor occupy a universalistically impartial moral standpoint. Rather, their conceptions of the good are determined chiefly by the communities in which they find themselves, and these conceptions are largely “constitutive” of their particular moral identities. Moral agency is thus “situated” and “particularistic,” and an impartial reflection on the conception of the good that constitutes it is undesirable, if not impossible. Further, communitarians contend, the good is “prior” to the right in the sense that moral norms are derived from, and justified in terms of, the good. An adequate moral and political theory must reflect these facts about moral agency and moral norms.

Author(s):  
R. Jay Wallace

Moral sentiments are those feelings or emotions central to moral agency. Aristotle treated sentiments as nonrational conditions, capable of being moulded into virtues through habituation. The moral sense theorists of the Enlightenment took sentiments to provide the psychological basis for our common moral life. Kantian approaches deny the primacy of sentiments in moral personality, and treat moral sentiments as conditioned by our rational grasp of moral principles. A central issue is whether moral sentiments incorporate moral beliefs. Accounts which affirm a connection with moral beliefs point to the complex intentionality (object-directedness) of such states as resentment or indignation. Against this, some observe that moral emotions may be felt inappropriately. Of special interest are the sentiments of guilt and shame. These seem to reflect different orientations towards moral norms, and questions arise about the degree to which these different orientations are culturally local, and whether either orientation is superior to the other.


2005 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Denis

Kant conceives of moral agents as autonomous, capable of motivating themselves to act on a self-given rule of reason, independently of – and even against – their inclinations. Moreover, Kant's moral theory tells agents to realize their autonomy, by striving to do what is right for its own sake. It is because of Kant's emphasis on autonomy that his notion of the highest good has been a topic of controversy. From Kant's time onward, commentators have suspected that the highest good, which promises virtuous agents happiness proportionate to their goodness, introduces heteronomy into morality. The standard response to this concern is that critics have misunderstood the relationship of the highest good to the agent's will: it is an object, not a spring, of moral action. This is a valid response to some articulations of the objection. But it does not adequately address the version that interests me: the charge that belief in God as the guarantor of happiness proportionate to virtue plays an inappropriate motivational role in Kant's moral theory. Kant appears to say that without belief in a God who will make the virtuous happy we would not be motivated to act rightly. This sort of claim seems to conflict with Kant's notion of moral agents as beings who are capable of doing the right thing just because it is right. If this conflict cannot be resolved, Kantians face a dilemma: either weaken the notion of autonomy, or (more likely) weaken the claims about the moral importance of faith in God.


2019 ◽  
Vol 165 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-272
Author(s):  
Simon Paul Jenkins

Moral theory should be practically useful, but without oversight from the philosophical community, the practical application of ethics by other institutions such as the military may drift into forms that are not theoretically robust. Ethical approaches that drift in this way run the risk of becoming ‘cargo cults’: simulations that will never properly fulfil their intended purpose. The four quadrant approach, a systematic method of ethical analysis that applies moral principles to clinical cases, has gained popularity in the last 10 years in a variety of medical contexts, especially the military. This paper considers whether the four quadrant approach is a cargo cult or whether it has theoretical value, with particular reference to the more popular four principles approach. This analysis concludes that the four quadrant approach has theoretical advantages over the four principles approach, if used in the right way (namely, with all four quadrants being used). The principal advantage is that the four quadrant approach leaves more room for clinical judgement, and thus avoids the charge of being too algorithmic, which has been levelled at the four principles approach. I suggest that it is the fourth quadrant, which invites the user to consider wider, contextual features of the case, which gives the approach this key advantage. Finally, I make a more general proposal that theoretical ethicists should work closely with those practitioners who apply ethics in the world, and I call for a symbiotic relationship between these two camps.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd P. Gerson

AbstractNeither a doctrine of rights nor a doctrine of justice can provide a non-question-begging foundation for political philosophy. Instead, all political philosophical theories must rest on the recognition of the existence of moral agents, individual members of a natural kind capable of entering into associations with other moral agents. Beginning with moral agency, we can deduce that for there to be any associations, political or otherwise, there has to be the mutual recognition of self-ownership. The nature of moral agency excludes the possibility that groups like states or societies or nations can be moral agents. From moral agency and self-ownership, we can deduce the exigency of property ownership. On this basis, we can explain a state of affairs as just when and only when there is no aggression against moral agents. And we can show that the only nonarbitrary right is the right to self-ownership and property ownership. Thus, A has a right to p means: to deprive A of p is unjust. So, rights are founded on justice and justice is founded on property and property is founded on self-ownership and the recognition of self-ownership is a necessary condition for the mutual recognition of moral agency, the only possible basis for the existence of human associations. Thus, rights and justice are derivative or dependent concepts; they are not basic or foundational.


AI & Society ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey White

AbstractRyan Tonkens (2009) has issued a seemingly impossible challenge, to articulate a comprehensive ethical framework within which artificial moral agents (AMAs) satisfy a Kantian inspired recipe—"rational" and "free"—while also satisfying perceived prerogatives of machine ethicists to facilitate the creation of AMAs that are perfectly and not merely reliably ethical. This series of papers meets this challenge by landscaping traditional moral theory in resolution of a comprehensive account of moral agency. The first paper established the challenge and set out autonomy in Aristotelian terms. The present paper interprets Kantian moral theory on the basis of the preceding introduction, argues contra Tonkens that an engineer does not violate the categorical imperative in creating Kantian AMAs, and proposes that a Kantian AMA is not only a possible goal for Machine ethics research, but a necessary one.


Author(s):  
Henry Richardson

This chapter motivates the book’s exploration of the moral community’s moral authority by setting out the attractions of an approach to moral theory that presupposes the existence of such authority—namely, constructive ethical pragmatism (CEP). Setting aside the anodyne form of consequentialism popular among defenders of the possibility of consequentializing all moral theories, the text reconstructs, in the face of their skepticism the Rawlsian distinction between the right and the good. In that light, CEP can be distinguished from a more substantial consequentialism that defines right action in light of a fixed conception of the good and from deontological views, which define right action in terms of fixed principles of right. CEP views the right and the good as each being revisable in light of the other. It is argued to be better able to guide deliberation than its rivals, in part because of its flexibility in responding to contingent conflicts among incommensurable considerations.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-54
Author(s):  
M. Nasor

Da'wah activities in plurality communities not only have strong basic principles of faith but also can realize basic moral principles and social ethics. Their existence must get guidance so that the community has the character of loving kindness, opposing evil, and not knowing violence in accordance with Islamic teachings. In such conditions the basis of a strong faith will be able to create a life that is in harmony with everyday life such as a sense of social justice, security, mutual help, respect, and others. The values of da'wah mentioned above must be implemented in daily life in a plurality society by referring to the principles, namely: (1) Islamic civilization stands on the basis of monotheism, (2) civilizations that are human, transcendental, and have international insight, (3) always hold moral principles, (4) believe in the right knowledge, and (5) have religious tolerance. Universal values of da'wah regulate relationships based on aspects of mutual respect, non-coercion, principles of justice, humanity, togetherness, brotherhood, freedom, unity and democracy.


Author(s):  
Charlotte R. Brown

‘Common-sense ethics’ refers to the pre-theoretical moral judgments of ordinary people. Moral philosophers have taken different attitudes towards the pre-theoretical judgments of ordinary people. For some they are the ‘facts’ which any successful moral theory must explain and justify, while for others the point of moral theory is to refine and improve them. ‘Common Sense ethics’ as a specific kind of moral theory was developed in Scotland during the latter part of the eighteenth century to counter what its proponents saw as the moral scepticism of David Hume. Thomas Reid, the main figure in this school, and his followers argued that moral knowledge and the motives to abide by it are within the reach of everyone. They believed that a plurality of basic self-evident moral principles is revealed by conscience to all mature moral agents. Conscience is an original and natural power of the human mind and this shows that God meant it to guide our will. A deeply Christian outlook underwrites their theory.


2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Carr

Moral conceptions of personal identity seem liable to different, more or less interesting, interpretations. This paper argues that on more interesting interpretations, moral identity is more a significant feature of personal identity than actually synonymous with it. The paper then proceeds to identify and evaluate the relative merits of very diverse conceptions of the relationship of person to moral agency in the major traditions of moral theory.


Author(s):  
Joseph Chan

Since the very beginning, Confucianism has been troubled by a serious gap between its political ideals and the reality of societal circumstances. Contemporary Confucians must develop a viable method of governance that can retain the spirit of the Confucian ideal while tackling problems arising from nonideal modern situations. The best way to meet this challenge, this book argues, is to adopt liberal democratic institutions that are shaped by the Confucian conception of the good rather than the liberal conception of the right. The book examines and reconstructs both Confucian political thought and liberal democratic institutions, blending them to form a new Confucian political philosophy. The book decouples liberal democratic institutions from their popular liberal philosophical foundations in fundamental moral rights, such as popular sovereignty, political equality, and individual sovereignty. Instead, it grounds them on Confucian principles and redefines their roles and functions, thus mixing Confucianism with liberal democratic institutions in a way that strengthens both. The book then explores the implications of this new yet traditional political philosophy for fundamental issues in modern politics, including authority, democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and social justice. The book critically reconfigures the Confucian political philosophy of the classical period for the contemporary era.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document