Moral reasoning Essay

Moral conclude is individual or collective practical reason out well-nigh what, virtuously, one ought to do. For present purpose, we may get a line issues near what is proper(ip) or wrong, virtuous or vicious, as genteelness righteous fountainhead.When we atomic number 18 faced with moral questions in free-and-easy life, average as when we are faced with child-rearing questions, sometimes we act impulsively or instinctively and sometimes we pause to reason well-nigh what we ought to do. Much of our reasoning comes about through are position on an issue and how are principle effects that issue. Reasoning, so understood is an intrinsically normative concept. An fundamental implication of this is that any empirical data that shows that we consistently think in a given odd way about morality tramp be taken in one or two severalize lights it fundament be taken to show that, since this is what we do this is how our moral reasoning is. Alternatively, it can be taken to show that, in the relevant incline of cases, we fail to think responsibly, and hence fail to engage in moral reasoning. And empirical data does not settle this kind of normative question for us.Therefore does morality require each person to reason in the same way, on the basis of the same fundamental considerations?In an root domain, peck would do the right thing simply because it is right. In the cosmos in which we live, morality is more complex. People often disagree about what is right. Even when a consensus on moral values is reached, many catch out that they do not consistently live up to a moral standard. One reason for this is that approximately hoi polloi place a extravagantly value on their own welfare. They may have moral ideals and commitments, barely concern about personal well being is a sizable motivating factor. It is more powerful for some than it is for former(a)s, but few can claim to be indifferent to it. Any significant gap in the midst of the demands of e thics and the urging of self-interest, narrowly defined, creates incentive problems for individuals and for societies wishing to maintain gamy ethical standards. The problems cut on two trains.At the first level are the direct incentive problems or opportunism and desperation. Problems of opportunism arise when individuals willingly crack ethical norms in order to pursue opportunities for unavowed gain. I believe an example of this is, George W Bush and the invasion of Iraq. The world was told that Suddam Hussein had weapons of plenteousness destruction, but to this twenty-four hour period their have been no weapons of atomic reactor destruction shown to the world, rather George W Bush has gain notoriety as the president that went on to save the people of Iraq from a dictator. When analyzing this further could it be said that President Bush was concerned about is duty to nourish the innocent people of Iraq or was it an opportunity to look good in the eyes of the world. What were the underlying principles.The fact that there was supposed to be the weapons of mass destruction has now faded in to obscurity. Did he yield to lure. Or where there other(a) principles at work. Secondly problems of desperation arise when individuals violate ethical norms to avoid loss or hardship. Even if we grant that most people place some intrinsic value on doing the right thing as they see it, sometimes the risk or the temptation is just too great. Too often we are presented with evidence from our daily lives, from news stories, and from academic research, that well-educated, apparently normal individuals can be tempted or pressured into compromising ethical standards.How then does this relate to the so-called real world? Human nature is not simple or uniformed, most people are not self centered, people often care about others. Nagel states theres one general argument against hurting other people which can be given to anybody who understands English (or any other langua ge), and which seems to show that he has some reason to care about others, regular(a) if in the end his selfish motives are so strong that he persists in treating other people badly anyway. Most people have some benevolent motivations and ethical commitments. Individuals have sympathy for the hurt of others and take pleasure in others well being.However, this care does not typically extend to all of humankind, but only to a referent stem (Hirschlieifer, 1982). The size and nature of that group varies significantly from person to person. The care as well as varies in intensity, depending on such things as the closeness of the relationship with the other person, In addition to this passive care for others people care about how they affect others. They generally do not want to cause harm, and do want to cause pleasure or satisfaction.Therefore in mop up if most people have a benevolent motive to do the right thing in bon ton and take pleasure in making ordering a happier plac e this would have to mean that society would need to be consistent in the way it treats people. There would be no impartiality or objectivity, all reasoning would be make from a top-down position. We would all then walk around with elated faces saying hello to all we meet, there would be no fighting anymore there would be no wars, there would be punishments that is across the board and not consider other factor into play. Fortunately society is not consistent in its moral and ethical day to day practice the fact that as individual human beings we are channelize in varies situations by varies events that caused the situation, this becomes a bottom-up reasoning were we are in turn guided by other judgements which lead us to ever re-evaluating our moral ground.ReferencesNagal, T., What Does It All Mean? A very short submission to Philosophy Oxford University Press, 1987Hirschleifer, J., Evolutionary Models Cooperation versus Conflict Strategies, JAI Press, Greenwich 1982