DOCSLIB.ORG

Charles Taylor and Nihilism David Liakos Connecticut College, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charles Taylor and Nihilism David Liakos Connecticut College, Dliakos@Conncoll.Edu Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College Philosophy Honors Papers Philosophy Department 2012 Overcoming Transcendence: Charles Taylor and Nihilism David Liakos Connecticut College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/philhp Recommended Citation Liakos, David, "Overcoming Transcendence: Charles Taylor and Nihilism" (2012). Philosophy Honors Papers. 3. http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/philhp/3 This Honors Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Honors Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. Overcoming Transcendence: Charles Taylor and Nihilism David Liakos Honors Thesis in Philosophy Connecticut College May 2012 ii Acknowledgements My deepest thanks goes to my adviser Larry Vogel, who encouraged, influenced and inspired me at every step in the project. Without his learning and wisdom this thesis would not be what it is, and I am extremely grateful for all he has taught me. Great help also came from Derek Turner, who read and provided invaluable comments on the whole thesis. Others who read and/or discussed parts of the project with me include Deborah Dreher, Kristin Pfefferkorn, and Steve Shoemaker. In many ways, my experiences with the entire Philosophy Department influenced the way I have thought through this project, so my sincerest thanks goes to all of them. iii Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..1 Part I. Non­Naturalism, Naturalism and the Place of Philosophy A. Taylor’s Non­Naturalism: Ad Hominem Reasoning and Transcendental Human Agency……………………………………….6 B. Retrieving a Good Beyond Life……………………………………..20 C. Living with Taylor’s Myths and Mirages……………………….31 D. Williams Takes on the System: The Peculiar Institution and Realistic Naturalism………………………………………………………...40 E. Disputing “the Power of the Good”……………………………….56 F. Beyond Moralism…………………………………………………………64 G. How Heavy Should the Package of Rights Be?....................73 H. What’s At Stake in the Naturalism/Non­Naturalism Debate?.................................................................................................83 Part II. Away from the Transcendent A. The Non­Naturalist Definition of Nihilism…………………...92 B. What’s Right and Wrong with Monotheism?......................103 C. Taylor Against Exclusive Humanism……………………………116 D. A Critique of Secularist Equivalent Replacement……......124 E. Joyful Being­in­the­World: Moving Beyond the Religious Attitudes…………………………………………………………………………136 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....154 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………159 “Out of infinite longings rise finite deeds like weak fountains, falling back just in time and trembling. And yet, what otherwise remains silent, our happy energies – show themselves in these dancing tears.” – Rilke Introduction This project is one of fundamental ethics, in the same way that Heidegger described his project in Being and Time as one of “fundamental ontology” (Int., I, §3; Int., II, §7). Fundamental ethics refers here to the attempt to describe the essence of ethical life without recourse to abstract theoretical formulations and rules or to mere psychological behavior or to ethereal metaphysical entities, all ethical approaches that will be considered in subsequent chapters. Fundamental ethics seeks a genuine and compelling answer to the question of how one should live and sees providing such an answer as philosophy’s primary goal. This formulation is useful in describing the connection between Part I, “Non‐ Naturalism, Naturalism and the Place of Philosophy,” and Part II, “Away from the Transcendent.” Heidegger looked at the history of metaphysics and criticized it for ignoring Being, and therefore sought with his fundamental ontology to describe the very essence of our Being‐in‐the‐world. I looked at the history of modern moral theory and found myself dissatisfied with its lack of connection to what I thought I knew about ethical life, so I looked for truer alternatives, or at least alternatives that struck me as truer; this became Part I of the project. Working with those 2 alternatives, I tried in Part II to apply a fundamental ethics to some problem in our culture, using the approaches described in Part I as a springboard for my own attempt to develop a joyful mode of being. Part I therefore grew out of my own frustration with the abstractness and formality of modern moral theory, of the Kantian and utilitarian varieties alike, and I sought alternatives wherein our moral lives were described in terms not of rules and procedures, but in ways that could get to the heart of the difficult and deeply meaningful decisions that make up the conflicts and dilemmas of human life. Part I deals, then, with the non‐naturalist and naturalist conceptions of ethics, represented by Charles Taylor and Bernard Williams respectively, as ethical paradigms that can grasp this essence in a way that Kantians and utilitarians haven’t, or so Taylor and Williams claim. The aspects of ethical life that I examine there include Taylor’s transcendental human agency, according to which we are “strong evaluators” who feel the call or pull of certain goods and ideals, for whom moral life exist along the three axes of what it is good to do, to be, and to love. Non‐naturalism of Taylor’s sort is also committed to retrieving a good beyond life, of affirming our connection to transcendence and not limiting our moral ontology to this‐worldly immanence. Taylor’s diagnosis of modernity, grounded in this emphasis on the need for transcendence, therefore proceeds to condemn modern secularism for its “exclusive humanism” and failure to pay heed to transcendence. Taylor’s philosophical anthropology does the work of making this diagnosis based upon its account of human agency. 3 Naturalism, on the other hand, as articulated by Williams, wants to take a wholly realistic view of human nature and describes ethics in non‐ethical terms – that is, in terms strictly of what is true of our history and psychology without any reference to non‐natural entities. Williams thus evinces a strong skepticism about philosophy and its efficacy, and has little to say about modernity, as evidenced by his thin discussion of political problems. I conclude in Part I that naturalism, in trying to describe the ethical in non‐ ethical terms, cannot therefore be a fundamental ethics because naturalism actually downgrades the role of ethics as conceived as a philosophical activity. I found non‐ naturalism, which takes philosophy to have a robust explanatory role, to be more capable of asking fundamental questions of interest to our culture, a task Taylor frequently sets out to do in his work. Part II answers what it would mean for a non‐naturalist to ask such fundamental questions, and there I find the non‐naturalist strategy of responding to such questions to be deeply wanting. The problem I consider there is how to combat the threat of nihilism, which non‐naturalists maintain amounts to our loss of connection to transcendent frames of value, a formulation seen in Taylor’s diagnosis of modernity and its exclusive humanism. Combating nihilism, therefore, is purportedly accomplished by reconnecting with the transcendent and sacred things. Drawing on Nietzsche’s writings on nihilism, I argue that nihilism is in fact the yearning for transcendence, and that the way to avoid nihilism is to throw off the transcendent completely. That means Taylor’s Christian monotheistic non‐ 4 naturalism, which is explicitly transcendental in its concerns, is totally inadequate to the task of combating nihilism, and I also argue that secular humanism, which I take to be a weak middle ground strategy of the equivalent replacement of religion with a basically religious outlook minus God, is also not up to the task because of its latent similarities to the religious form of life. At the end of Part II, I develop my own vision, heavily influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche, of what a truly non‐ transcendent, joyful mode of being would be, involving our robust engagement with and concern for our own being‐in‐the‐world, a way of loving the world by being committed to living in it without appeal to the transcendent. I’ve striven for a fundamental ethics in the following ways. In contrast to the decision procedure models of modern moral theory, I’ve engaged with non‐ naturalistic transcendental human agency and naturalistic psychological realism to develop a more fundamental account of moral life. In connecting moral ontology to diagnoses of modernity in the vein of Charles Taylor, I opted to use non‐naturalism rather than naturalism as a springboard for discussing issues of great cultural importance because I found non‐naturalism’s role for philosophy to be more robust and interesting. Fundamental ethics must answer fundamental questions, so I turned to the problem of nihilism in contemporary culture, which the non‐ naturalists take to be a problem about our lack of connection to transcendence. Breaking with non‐naturalism, I disputed that definition and concluded, using Nietzschean arguments, that a joyful mode of being‐in‐the‐world is the only way (or at least the only way I know how) to live a meaningful life without transcendence. 5 That conclusion I take to be an example
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 55 'SAVING the GREATEST NUMBER' THOM BROOKS Imagine
    “05brooks” i i 2004/3/16 page 55 i i Logique & Analyse 177–178 (2002), 55–59 `SAVING THE GREATEST NUMBER' THOM BROOKS Imagine there are three boats equidistant from one another. You are alone in the first boat. The other two boats are sinking fast: one boat has one person (A), the other has two persons (B&C). There is only enough time to allow saving either A or B&C before their boats sink, drowning whoever is onboard.1 `As far as common-sense morality is concerned, one's duty as rescuer, under the circumstances, is a straightforward matter: one ought to save the greatest number' (Kumar 2001: 165). In this example, one reason in favour of saving B&C and not A is the Kamm-Scanlon argument, a contractualist framework without any commit- ment to aggregating various outcome values nor a combination of individual claims for rescue.2 If the claims of A, B, and C are accorded equal and positive weight, Michael Otsuka contends that the Kamm-Scanlon argument `considers C's claim in combination with B's claim so that they together tip the balance in favor of saving B and C' and not A (2000: 290–91; cf Scan- lon 1998: 232–33). C's presence in B's boat makes the difference between saving A or B&C. For Otsuka, the assertion that `C has a claim to be saved by virtue of an appeal to the difference that B and C make when considered together or in combination rather than one by one' amounts to an `appeal to the claim of a group of individuals' (2000: 292).
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition
    Tacit Tirukku#a#: Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Smith, Jason William. 2020. Tacit Tirukku#a#: Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Divinity School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37364524 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use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
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Neurobiology on the Study and Interpretation of Scripture
    READING THE BODY, READING SCRIPTURE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROBIOLOGY ON THE STUDY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE David Cave This paper considers what the neurobiological reading of the body implies for the reading of scripture. By ‘the neurological reading of the body’ I refer to how modern science and culture draw upon cognitive science and genetics to explain and to understand what it means to be human. And by the ‘reading of scripture’ I refer to the practice of the various religious traditions to understand our humanity based on claims of inspired and revealed insights, said to come from some agency transcendent to our naturalized mind and body. I contend that within a naturalistic system these two readings are not mutually exclusive but interrelate such that the reading of one informs and illumines the reading of the other. Among many quarters, the reading of the body has come to rival, even replace, the reading of scripture (and here I refer to scripture broadly understood, of no particular religious tradition) for defining and guiding us in what it means to be a human being. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, columnist David Brooks, in “The Neural Buddhists,” comments on the widespread interest in neuroscience and genetics and surmises that its proponents will not so much undermine a belief in God as undermine the claims of scripture. He says, “The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public cul- ture . and yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a side- show.
    [Show full text]
  • Grotius and Kant on Original Community of Goods and Property
    grotiana 38 (2017) 106-128 GROTIAN A brill.com/grot Grotius and Kant on Original Community of Goods and Property Sylvie Loriaux Département de science politique, Université Laval, Quebec [email protected] Abstract This paper is interested in the critical potential of the idea of original common possession of the Earth. On the basis of a comparative analysis of Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant, it shows how different the meaning of this idea can be within a theory of property or territory. The first part is devoted to Grotius’s account of why and how the institution of property was progressively introduced. It highlights the importance this account attaches to the intention of the first distributors for a good understand- ing of property laws, and in particular, for an understanding of their non-application in situations of extreme necessity. The second part takes the opposite path and shows that although Kant rejects the very existence of a right of necessity, the idea that one might be liberated from a law is not completely absent from, and even plays a crucial role in, his account of property. Clarification of this role ultimately leads us back to the idea of original possession in common of the Earth. Keywords Hugo Grotius – Immanuel Kant – original community of goods – necessity – permissive law – property rights * The author would like to thank the journal’s anonymous referees and editor for their very helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. She would also like to thank the participants in the Workshop on Grotius’s Place in the History of Moral and Politi- cal Thought (Leuven, 2017) and in the Workshop on Private Property and Territorial Rights (Bayreuth, 2017) for illuminating discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Taylor and George Grant on the Problem of Instrumentalism: Expressivism and Justice As Alternative Ontologies
    CHARLES TAYLOR AND GEORGE GRANT ON THE PROBLEM OF INSTRUMENTALISM: EXPRESSIVISM AND JUSTICE AS ALTERNATIVE ONTOLOGIES Carlos Colorado Bachelor of Arts, Simon Fraser University, 2001 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Under Special Arrangements in the Faculty of Arts O Carlos Colorado 2004 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August 2004 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Carlos Colorado Degree: Master of Arts Charles Taylor and George Grant on the Problem of Title of Thesis: Instrumentalism: Expressivism and Justice as Alternative Ontologies Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Jonathan C. Driver Dean of Graduate Studies Dr. Ian Angus Senior Supervisor Professor Department of Humanities Dr. David Laycock Supervisor Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Samuel LaSelva External Examiner Professor Department of Political Science University of British Columbia Date Approved: &b! 208~ Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Construction and Definition of New Branches & Hierarchy of Sciences
    Philosophy Study, July 2016, Vol. 6, No. 7, 377-416 doi: 10.17265/2159-5313/2016.07.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING New Perspective for the Philosophy of Science: Re-Construction and Definition of New Branches & Hierarchy of Sciences Refet Ramiz Near East University In this work, author evaluated past theories and perspectives behind the definitions of science and/or branches of science. Also some of the philosophers of science and their specific philosophical interests were expressed. Author considered some type of interactions between some disciplines to determine, to solve the philosophical/scientific problems and to define the possible solutions. The purposes of this article are: (i) to define new synthesis method, (ii) to define new perspective for the philosophy of science, (iii) to define relation between new philosophy perspective and philosophy of science, (iv) to define and organize name, number, relations, and correct structure between special science branches and philosophy of science, (v) to define necessary and sufficient number of branches for philosophy of science, (vi) to define and express the importance and place of new philosophy of science perspective in the new system, (vii) to extend the definition/limits of philosophy of science, (viii) to re-define meanings of some philosophical/scientific theories, (ix) to define systematic solution for the conflicts, problems, confusions about philosophy of science, sciences and branches of science, (x) to define new branches of science, (xi) to re-construct branches and hierarchy of science, (xii) to define new theories about science and branches of science. Author considered R-Synthesis as a method for the evaluation of the philosophy, philosophy of science, sciences and branches of science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoics and the Practical: a Roman Reply to Aristotle
    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 8-2013 The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle Robin Weiss DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Weiss, Robin, "The Stoics and the practical: a Roman reply to Aristotle" (2013). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 143. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/143 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE STOICS AND THE PRACTICAL: A ROMAN REPLY TO ARISTOTLE A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 2013 BY Robin Weiss Department of Philosophy College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences DePaul University Chicago, IL - TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction……………………..............................................................................................................p.i Chapter One: Practical Knowledge and its Others Technê and Natural Philosophy…………………………….....……..……………………………….....p. 1 Virtue and technical expertise conflated – subsequently distinguished in Plato – ethical knowledge contrasted with that of nature in
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger, Being and Time
    Heidegger's Being and Time 1 Karsten Harries Heidegger's Being and Time Seminar Notes Spring Semester 2014 Yale University Heidegger's Being and Time 2 Copyright Karsten Harries [email protected] Heidegger's Being and Time 3 Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Ontology and Fundamental Ontology 16 3. Methodological Considerations 30 4. Being-in-the-World 43 5. The World 55 6. Who am I? 69 7. Understanding, Interpretation, Language 82 8. Care and Truth 96 9. The Entirety of Dasein 113 10. Conscience, Guilt, Resolve 128 11. Time and Subjectivity 145 12. History and the Hero 158 13. Conclusion 169 Heidegger's Being and Time 4 1. Introduction 1 In this seminar I shall be concerned with Heidegger's Being and Time. I shall refer to other works by Heidegger, but the discussion will center on Being and Time. In reading the book, some of you, especially those with a reading knowledge of German, may find the lectures of the twenties helpful, which have appeared now as volumes of the Gesamtausgabe. Many of these have by now been translated. I am thinking especially of GA 17 Einführung in die phänomenologische Forschung (1923/24); Introduction to Phenomenological Research, trans. Daniel O. Dahlstrom (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2005) GA 20 Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Zeitbegriffs (1925); History of the Concept of Time, trans. Theodore Kisiel (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985) GA 21 Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit (1925/26). Logic: The Question of Truth, trans. Thomas Sheehan GA 24 Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie (1927); The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr
    Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR Written by Andreas Aagaard Nohr This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Beyond Westphalia: Rethinking Fundamental Ontology in IR https://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/05/beyond-westphalia-rethinking-fundamental-ontology-in-ir/ ANDREAS AAGAARD NOHR, JUL 5 2012 ‘Our task is to broaden our reasoning to make it capable of grasping what, in ourselves and others, precedes and exceeds reason’ – Maurice Merleau-Ponty[1] The Western philosophical tradition has been entrenched in a particular understanding of human beings by Plato’s love for theory. Theory, the notion that the universe can be understood in a detached and abstract way, by finding the principles that underlie the abundance of phenomena was surely powerful. And in effect, Plato held that we could have a theory of everything, even human beings and their relation to the world.[2] Man had to crawl out of the cave, where his existence had been meek shadow imagery. To be sure, this means that Plato had an implicit theory of how human beings relate to things. As such, the tradition has been build on the basic understanding of human beings as subjects contemplating, or relating to, objects. Man is a cogito, a thinking subject – a rational animal – in a world of objects. The consequence of this assumption is a categorical split between the mind and the world. So much becomes clear in the philosophy of René Descartes, who tried to doubt everything until there was only one thing he could not doubt: his own existence.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz Heidegger
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ HEIDEGGER: ONTOLOGICAL POLITICS TO TECHNOLOGICAL POLITICS A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in PHILOSOPHY by Javier Cardoza-Kon June 2014 The dissertation of Javier Cardoza-Kon is approved: ____________________________________ Professor David C. Hoy, chair ____________________________________ Professor Abraham Stone ____________________________________ Carlos A. Sanchez, Ph.D. _____________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Javier Cardoza-Kon 2014 Table of Contents Abstract. iv Dedication. v Introduction. 1 Chapter 1: Cultural Identity and Two Politics. 14 Chapter 2: Polemos, Auseinandersetzung, and Unconcealment. 50 Chapter 3: Auseiandersetzung, Nietzsche, and the Politics of Nihilism. 77 Chapter 4: Technology and We Late-Moderns. 113 Conclusion: Heidegger’s in the Contemporary World. 160 Bibliography and Abbreviations of Cited Material 173 iii Abstract Heidegger: Ontological Politics to Technological Politics. By Javier Cardoza-Kon As Heidegger himself has done with Nietzsche in claiming that he will articulate what Nietzsche meant but never said metaphysically, I also do with Heidegger in terms of politics. On my reading there are two kinds of politics in Heidegger’s middle and late thought that are, for the most part, murky and confused. There is a politics of ontology the deals with the encountering and articulating of what beings are and what Being itself is. There is also a politics on the more familiar level of societies and the policies that different groups establish and follow. It is in terms of the second type of politics that Heidegger is most often attacked, and for good reason.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Intention and Normative Belief Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8725w3wp Author Chislenko, Eugene Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Intention and Normative Belief By Eugene Chislenko A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Hannah Ginsborg, Co-Chair Professor R. Jay Wallace, Co-Chair Professor Hubert Dreyfus Professor Tania Lombrozo Spring 2016 Copyright by Eugene Chislenko 2016 Abstract Intention and Normative Belief by Eugene Chislenko Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Berkeley Professor Hannah Ginsborg and Professor R. Jay Wallace, Co-Chairs People can be malicious, perverse, compulsive, self-destructive, indifferent, or in conflict with their own better judgment. This much is obvious—but on many traditional views, it seems puzzling or even impossible. Many philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle to Kant, Davidson, and others, have thought that we act only “under the guise of the good,” doing only what we see as good, or best, or what we ought to do. These “guise-of-the-good” views offered a way to make sense of the attribution and explanation of action, while maintaining a generous view of human nature as essentially pursuing the good. But are they not hopelessly narrow and naïve? It seems clear that we often do what we do not see as good, and even what we see as bad.
    [Show full text]
  • Normative Ethics
    Normative ethics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Normative ethics is the new "it" branch of philosophical ethics concerned with Ethics classifying actions as right and wrong. Theoretical Normative ethics attempts to develop a set of rules governing human conduct, Meta-ethics or a set of norms for action. It deals with what people should believe to be right Normative · Descriptive Consequentialism and wrong, as distinct from descriptive ethics, which deals with what people do Deontology believe to be right and wrong. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes said to be Virtue ethics prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Ethics of care Good and evil · Morality Moreover, because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics, which studies the nature Applied of moral statements, and from applied ethics, which places normative rules in practical contexts. Bioethics · Medical Engineering · Environmental Human rights · Animal rights Normative ethical theories Legal · Media Business · Marketing Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is Religion · War contingent on the action's outcome or result. Some consequentialist theories include: Core issues Utilitarianism, which holds that an action is right if it leads to the most value for the greatest number of people (Maximizes value for Justice · Value all people). Right · Duty · Virtue Egoism, the belief that the moral person is the self-interested Equality · Freedom · Trust person, holds that an action is right if it maximizes good for the Free will · Consent self. Moral responsibility Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors Key thinkers of one's duties and other's rights.
    [Show full text]