scholarly journals Williams on the problem of moral integrity

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-66
Author(s):  
Katarina Majstorovic
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Bernard Williams ◽  
Moral Integrity ◽  
Ethical Position ◽  
Deontological Ethics ◽  
Act Utilitarianism ◽  
The Individual

In this paper, we have tried to point out the importance of the problem of moral integrity in ethical theory. The best way to make an introduction to ethical weighing when it comes to the problem of moral integrity is to analyze the dispute initiated by Bernard Williams. Namely, this is a critique of the act utilitarianism, whose essential weight is precisely on the topic of moral integrity. Williams conceived his objection as saying that there was no place for the value of moral integrity within the act utilitarianism. The treatment of moral integrity is the point of radical disagreement between utilitarianism and deontological ethics. In this way, deciding between utilitarianism and an alternative ethical position, we are actually deciding in favor or against the affirmation of the values of moral integrity. This is a very significant decision when it comes to ethical position. This paper is part of a broader topic on the place of moral integrity in ethical theory, where we have argued that utilitarianism is not the optimal ethical position, precisely because it does not affirm the value of the moral integrity of the individual. This paper is a preparation of such an attitude and has a more modest ambition - it deals with the re-examination of the perception of moral integrity within a utilitarian ethical position.

Communicating moral reasoning in medicine as an expression of respect for patients and integrity among professionals

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauris Christopher Kaldjian
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Moral Pluralism ◽  
Moral Integrity ◽  
Moral Beliefs ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
Beliefs And Values ◽  
Moral Frameworks ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Do So

The communication of moral reasoning in medicine can be understood as a means of showing respect for patients and colleagues through the giving of moral reasons for actions. This communication is especially important when disagreements arise. While moral reasoning should strive for impartiality, it also needs to acknowledge the individual moral beliefs and values that distinguish each person (moral particularity) and give rise to the challenge of contrasting moral frameworks (moral pluralism). Efforts to communicate moral reasoning should move beyond common approaches to principles-based reasoning in medical ethics by addressing the underlying beliefs and values that define our moral frameworks and guide our interpretations and applications of principles. Communicating about underlying beliefs and values requires a willingness to grapple with challenges of accessibility (the degree to which particular beliefs and values are intelligible between persons) and translatability (the degree to which particular beliefs and values can be transposed from one moral framework to another) as words and concepts are used to communicate beliefs and values. Moral dialogues between professionals and patients and among professionals themselves need to be handled carefully, and sometimes these dialogues invite reference to underlying beliefs and values. When professionals choose to articulate such beliefs and values, they can do so as an expression of respectful patient care and collaboration and as a means of promoting their own moral integrity by signalling the need for consistency between their own beliefs, words and actions.

scholarly journals Sartres Lösung zur Antinomie der sozialen Realität in der Kritik der dialektischen Vernunft

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 817-847
Author(s):  
Sebastian Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Theory ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Philosophical Foundation ◽  
A Posteriori ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Dialectical Reason ◽  
The Individual

AbstractCritics have standardly regarded Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason as an abortive attempt to overcome the subjectivist individualism of his early philosophy, motivated by a recognition that Being and Nothingness lacks ethical and political significance, but derailed by Sartre’s Marxism. In this paper I offer an interpretation of the Critique which, if correct, shows it to offer a coherent and highly original account of social and political reality, which merits attention both in its own right and as a reconstruction of the philosophical foundation of Marxism. The key to Sartre’s theory of collective and historical existence in the Critique is a thesis carried over from Being and Nothingness: intersubjectivity on Sartre’s account is inherently aporetic, and social ontology reproduces in magnified form its limited intelligibility, lack of transparency, and necessary frustration of the demands of freedom. Sartre’s further conjecture – which can be formulated a priori but requires a posteriori verification – is that man’s collective historical existence may be understood as the means by which the antinomy within human freedom, insoluble at the level of the individual, is finally overcome. The Critique provides therefore the ethical theory promised in Being and Nothingness.

Ethics and Reality

1998 ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Alison Roberts Miculan
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Good For ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Way

One of the most pervasive problems in theoretical ethics has been the attempt to reconcile the good for the individual with the good for all. It is a problem which appears in contemporary discussions (like those initiated by Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue) as a debate between emotivism and rationalism, and in more traditional debates between relativism and absolutism. I believe that a vital cause of this difficulty arises from a failure to ground ethics in metaphysics. It is crucial, it seems to me, to begin with "the way the world is" before we begin to speculate about the way it ought to be. And, the most significant "way the world is" for ethics is that it is individuals in community. This paper attempts to develop an ethical theory based solidly on Whitehead’s metaphysics, and to address precisely the problem of the relation between the good for the individual and the common good, in such a way as to be sympathetic to both.

Rights Based Paretianism

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Vallentyne
Keyword(s):  
Decision Theory ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Act Utilitarianism

An ethical theory is axiological just in case it makes the permissibility of actions depend solely on considerations of goodness. Act utilitarianism is the paradigm axiological theory. An ethical theory is a pure rights theory just in case it judges an action permissible if and only if it violates no one’s rights. Libertarianism is a paradigm pure rights theory. I shall formulate and defend a type of axiological theory that, unlike act utilitarianism, is sensitive in a new and interesting way to whether rights are violated.Let us start by briefly considering the strengths and weakness of act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism judges an action permissible just in case it maximizes social (e.g., total or average) welfare. It has many attractive features. It is a clearly formulated theory that draws on the machinery of decision theory. It takes a tough minded approach to morality: always focusing on the outcomes of actions. And it takes human welfare very seriously. The axiological theory I shall defend will have all these features.

Humanity and Moral Rights

1998 ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Vasil Gluchman
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Individual

The priority and absoluteness of rights is often gist for ethical debates. I consider these issues from the perspective of my ethical theory, which I call the "ethics of social consequences." The ethics of social consequences is one means of satisfying non-utilitarian consequentialism. It is characterized by the principles of positive social consequences, humanity, human dignity, legality, justice, responsibility, tolerance as well as moral obligation. I analyze Gewirth’s position regarding the absoluteness of rights as well as Nagel’s opinion that rights enjoy priority forever. However, I also concentrate on Williams’s critique of utilitarianism. I contend that the priority of the protection and respect of individual rights in ordinary situations is acceptable. However, the individual must respect the rights and justified interests of other concerned people. Nevertheless, in extraordinary situations one must accept that consequences are more significant than rights.

Multiculturalism and the challenge of pluralism

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-516
Author(s):  
Volker Kaul
Keyword(s):  
Richard Rorty ◽  
Alternative Conceptions ◽  
Individual Identity ◽  
Bernard Williams ◽  
Religious Identities ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Self Knowledge ◽  
Individual Nature ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual

Today we can identify two challenges of pluralism: the ever-growing conflicts between religious, national and ethnic groups on the one hand and the oppression of dissenting individuals by their respective communities on the other hand. Both intercommunitarian and intracommunitarian conflicts find their origin in a communitarian conception of our political, cultural, or religious identities. After presenting some of the problems of the communitarian solution in particular with regard to the challenge of internal pluralism, I introduce alternative conceptions of multiculturalism that consider our commitments to be part of our personal or individual identity. Distinguishing a conception of identity based upon self-knowledge from liberal, postmodern theories (Richard Rorty) and alternative non-cognitive theories (Bernard Williams) that consider identity to be individual in nature, I propose that the awareness of the individual nature of commitments makes it possible for us not to impose our values upon other individuals who do not share them while at the same time justifying the multicultural project.

Intransitive Ethics

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Act Utilitarianism ◽  
Limited Scope

AbstractThis article addresses the question of whether the relation of moral preference is transitive. I argue, following Larry Temkin and Stuart Rachels, that any ethical theory complex enough to be even minimally plausible allows us to generate intransitive sets of preferences. Even act utilitarianism cannot avoid this predicament unless we accept its least plausible version. We must reevaluate the assumption that an ethical theory must be transitive in order to be rational. This problem amounts to a foundational crisis in ethics. However, it has not been taken seriously for two reasons—the belief that the problem has limited scope; and the claim that arguments against transitivity are 'merely' Sorites arguments. This article responds to both of these objections. I also point out some connections between intransitivity and the debate surrounding skepticism about the moral significance of numbers.

scholarly journals THE EFFECT OF THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR AND THE THEORY OF ETHICS IN DIGITAL PIRACY

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1751-1775
Author(s):  
Mehmet Ozan KARAHAN ◽  
Aydın KAYABAŞI
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Planned Behavior ◽  
Planned Behavior ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Subjective Norm ◽  
Control Factor ◽  
Perceived Behavioral Control ◽  
Digital Piracy ◽  
Deontological Ethics ◽  
The Individual

This study aims to analyze and describe the factors that influence Turkish computer users’ behaviors related to digital piracy in the context of the theory of planned behavior and ethical models. Relational research model was used to reveal the relationship between variables. Structured questionnaires were used for obtaining data and research units were easily sampled. Both single and multi-variabe statistical analysis methods were used while analysing research data and after all structural equilibrium model and path analyses were carried out for testing the hypotheses. While habit the additional factor of the model and the perceived behavioral control factor does not affect the behavior of the individual; attitude and subjective norm factors have influence on intention. Also, intention factor affects the behaviors of the individual for digital piracy as expected. In the context of general ethical theory, perceived benefit factor forming the teleological ethics does not affect the intention of the individual but it affects the attitude with the perceived risk factor. It is also accepted that the moral obligation and justice factors forming the deontological ethics affect the subjective norm and the moral obligation affects the intention of the individual on the digital piracy.

scholarly journals Freedom of Conscience as a Subject of Contemporary Controversies

2021 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-606
Author(s):  
Marian Machinek
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Moral Truth ◽  
Moral Integrity ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Voice

One of the important reasons why the issue of freedom of conscience is one of the most controversial problems of modern times is the ongoing dispute over its definition. In the context of the contemporary emphasis on the moral autonomy of the person, the recent definitions of conscience as the “voice of God” sound at least ambiguous. It is therefore important to point out the various dimensions of conscience. The first and basic one is the individual dimension: conscience is defined as moral self-consciousness in its deepest, personal dimension. It can therefore, following E. Fromm, be described as the “guardian of moral integrity.” However, in addition to this, conscience also points out to “what is common” (J. Ratzinger), to the fundamental values that make social life possible. It is therefore also a carrier of moral truth. Finally, conscience touches upon the relationship with God and this is where its important religious dimension is expressed. It is only when each of these three dimensions of conscience is taken into account that the question of its freedom can be adequately considered. It concerns, above all, the relationship of an individual conscience to an external authority, both in social and ecclesiastical context.

Law, limits of

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.W. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Life ◽  
Minimum Cost ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Harm Principle ◽  
Moral Integrity ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Political Tradition ◽  
Legal Coercion ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual

Questions concerning the proper limits of law are of particular interest to thinkers in the Western political tradition of individualism. In this tradition the law is regarded primarily as an instrument of coercion and the problem is to define the scope of law in such a way that it fulfils its necessary purposes at minimum cost to individual liberty. Debate therefore centres on the proper ends of legal coercion. Two law-limiting strategies are commonly adopted; the practical and the moral. As the most important ends of human life (salvation of the soul, or its secular equivalent, moral integrity) are taken to require the uncoerced, ’inward’, assent of the individual, the effective scope of the law is significantly limited on practical grounds to the regulation of ’outward’ behaviour. On the moral question concerning which behaviour ought to fall within the purview of the law, conservatives contend that society has a right to enforce its moral values by criminalizing whatever behaviour its members regard as ’sinful’. The characteristic strategy of liberals is to respond by arguing that unorthodox or unpopular activities must clearly be shown to be ’harmful’ before they may properly be outlawed. Much debate focuses upon the interpretation of this principle (the ‘harm principle’), particularly what is to count as ’harm’ for purposes of legislation, and whose harm is properly in question. Dissatisfaction on these crucial issues has led some liberals to reject what they consider to be the fruitless attempt to draw the line between liberty and law by balancing individual against social harm in favour of various theories of individual rights, while it has led others (communitarians and some feminists) to question the individualist assumptions in terms of which the problem of the limits of law gains its especial urgency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document