Deontology A correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally correct

A correct motivation alone is never a justification for an action in a deontological moral system and cannot be used as a basis for describing an action as morally is also not enough to simply believe that something is the correct duty to follow. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, not subjectively. There is no room in deontological systems of subjective feelings on the contrary, most adherents condemn subjectivism and relativism in all their make the moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Typically in any deontological systems, our duties, rules and obligations are determined by God. If this were duties created by God, how can they possibly stop being duties today? Many attempts to develop deontological systems focus on explaining how and why certain duties are valid at any time or at all times and how we can know that. Religious believers are often in the difficult position of trying to explain what believers of the past treated certain duties as objective, absolute ethical requirements created by God but today they aren’t – today we have different absolute, objective ethical requirements created by God. These are all reasons why irreligious atheists rarely subscribe to deontological ethical systems, though it can’t be denied that they can at times have ethical insights to offer.
When it comes to my opinion of greed, I believe that greed can be a good or bad thing. In his speech, Gordon Gekko says, Greed Is Good. But I think that there is a difference when it comes to greed and being better than others. Greed can be good because it gives people a goal, something for people to strive towards. I do not think that Kant would agree with Gekko because Kant believes you should do what is good for everyone, whereas greed only benefits yourself. Kant also wants all people to be even and fair, whereas greed makes some people better than others.
All the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences. Consequentialism says that right or wrong depend on the consequences of an act and that the more good consequences are produced, the better the act. The view that the value of an action derives entirely from the value of its consequences. This contrasts both with the view that the value of an action may derive from the kind of character whose action it is (courageous, just, temperate, etc.) and with the view that its value may be intrinsic, belonging to it simply as an act of truth-telling, promise-keeping, etc. The former is the option explored in virtue ethics, and the latter in deontological ethics. Consequentialism needs to identify some kinds of consequence whose value is not derivative from actions, but resides, e.g., in states of pleasure or happiness, thought of as ends towards which actions are means. Opposition to this way of looking at ethics may begin with wondering whether self-standing states of this kind exist, given that generally we take satisfaction and pleasure in acting, and it is not possible to separate the pleasure as an end from the action as a mere means. Critics also point out the way in which much ethical life is ‘backward looking'(seeing whether an action is a case of breaking a promise, abusing a role, betraying a trust, etc.) rather that exclusively ‘forward looking’ as consequentialism.
I know it might sound weird but ethics and egoism go hand-in-hand. They have a lot more in common than the fact that they both have 6 letters and begin with the letter, “E.” When you think of ethics you likely think of people doing the right thing to make the world better and thinking generously of the needs of others. Yet, when you analyse why people make the ethical decisions that they do, more often than not, they are considering self-interest (that is, egoism). Self-interest motivates many of our behaviours…even our gracious and generous ones. People may donate money to a worthy charity to feel less guilty about not helping out more or perhaps to see their name on a donor’s publication list (or on the front of a building), or perhaps they just don’t want to argue with the person making the request. People might volunteer to help others in need (e.g., work at a soup kitchen) to earn community service credits for a course or to improve their resume. Frequently young people today engage in volunteer work in order to improve their odds at admission into a selective college or graduate program. People might behave in a generous manner to impress their family, friends, or a potential mate. Watch how men behave on a first date with children, animals, and those in need compared to how they might behave later in a relationship. If people want to behave ethically and do nice things for others for selfish reasons I say bring it on.

Distributive justice
Every person should have the same level of material goods and services and people are morally equal and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this moral idea. We have construction of appropriate indices for measurement (the index problem) and the specification of time frames .the index problem arises because the goods to be distributed need to be measured if they are going to be distributed according to some pattern (such as equality ) .the problem is how to specify and measure levels. One way of solving the index problem is to specify that everyone should have the same bundle of material goods and services rather than the same level (so everyone would have 4 oranges, 6 apples, 1 bike, etc.).The main objection to this solution is that it appears likely that there will be many other allocations of material goods and services which make some people better off without making anybody else worse off. For instance, someone who prefers apples to oranges will be better off if he/she swaps some of his/her oranges for some of the apples belonging to a person who prefers oranges. Specification of time frames identify and require that a particular pattern of distribution be achieved or at least aimed at .but they also need to specify when the pattern is required. All people should have the same wealth at some initial point, after which people are free to use their wealth in whatever way they choose, with the consequences that future outcomes are bound to be unequal. Most common form of equality principle specifies that income (measured in terms of money) should be equal in each time frames, though even this may lead to significant disparities in wealth if variations in savings are permitted.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Environmental ethics
To keep our country healthy, all these elements need to work together. There are no global laws protecting the environment and that is why everyone should practice good ethics when it comes to the environmental issues. Most environmental problems are the result of the unethical actions of individual or organizations .providing information to the communities on local and global environmental problems. Environmental education is the link to teaching environmental ethics. Environmental education provides countless contributions to ethical treatment of the environment .e.g. it can enlighten the public on many of the environmental issues we face the same time, environmental education promotes stewardship of natural resources. Environmental education enhances the public’s understanding of the need for a healthy plant, animal life and also educates the public about how their actions affect natural ecosystems and how positive steps taken to minimize impacts on these ecosystems will translate into improvements in our overall environment. Teaching environment is as important as teaching people to read or write. After learning about the impact that human race have caused, they want to know how to correct or reduce the impact on the environment. Source reduction is the key to answering this very complex question and it’s about reversing one’s lifestyle and building an economy that is environmentally sound, rather than one based on the throw and burn ethic. Source reduction is about designing, manufacturing and using products with goal of lessening their quantity and toxicity in the waste stream. If waste isn’t created, it presents no disposal the long run, sources reduction provides the most ethical and cost effective way of reducing our impact on the environment.


I'm Dianna!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out