Running head: MORAL VALUE 1

Moral Value

Name

Institution
MORAL VALUE 2

Moral Value

Question 2: Morality based egoist principles

Moral values can either be based on egoistic or non-egoistic principles. The moral values

are based on the concept of having either something right or wrong, good or bad, and morally

acceptable or unacceptable, among others. An individual’s moral values can originate from

several sources such as cultural beliefs and values, religion, daily experiences, and even laws. In

this regard, ethical egoism refers to the promotion of one’s self-good. As s result, it acts as a goal

of their actions (Poijman & Tramel, 2009, p. 60). On one hand, proponents of morality not being

based on non-egoist principle assert that no one is of the expectation that the whole global

population would act in a manner that result in the most benefit for that one person. They also

obligate every individual to prevent others from carrying out the right thing if it not in

accordance with that person’s thinking. As a result, they base their arguments on no principles as

long as the action is morally right and it is beneficial to the person who is doing it. To most of us,

it appears that we can act selflessly. Every time we hear about people volunteering at hospitals,

schools, donating to charities, or sacrificing their own lies in order to save other people’s lives.

Surely these acts are not selfish ones. Morality is based on non-egoistic principles. Sympathy

forms the basis of morality; morality needs concern for the good of others for its own sake, and

not just as a means of one’s own god. Even though not all non-egoistic motives are suitable for

morality, God’s glory should not the only motive for morally correct behavior. Therefore,

sympathy is crucial in morality since it is egoistic and directly appropriate.

On the other hand, proponents of morality being fundamentally egoistic and based on

egoistic principles argue that humans are often motivated by self-interests. The inclination is
MORAL VALUE 3

towards the good of another. Moral principles are universal and are not valid for everyone, but

also compelling to any rational moral agent. We feel joy when we are in the company of others,

which is based on the principle of fulfilling our own desires for as to be morally right. Everyone

requires the cooperation of others in order for them to acquire benefits such as friendship and

defense. In this case, the basis of morality is that when a person acts as if he or she gives no

emphasis to other, the other people would not cooperate with them.

In my opinion, morality is fundamentally egoist. It implies that morality is based on

egoistic principles. As an egoist I would argue that whatever is in your interest

is morally permissible. The people are well-off if every one of them pursues their interests. In

spite of people volunteering at hospitals, schools, donating to charities, or sacrificing their own

lives, it is because they wanted to do so. It therefore implies that nobody wants to do something

they do not want. Therefore, the actions serve themselves at the expense of others. Even common

sense informs us that other people’s interests also count and egoism agrees with the basic

principle that we help others if we interested in helping them. In my view we are motivated by

being self-fish.

Question 3: Morality theories

Utilitarian

The utilitarian ethical theory argues that the morality of actions depends on their

consequences. As a result, it is consequentialist (Poijman & Tramel, 2009, p. 156). Developed

by Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism shares the view that morality is an action that is usually

dependent on results. To arrive at the conclusions, the utilitarians are of the opinion that

rightness is a matter of actual results. It informs on perceiving things both from a universal and
MORAL VALUE 4

an individual’s point of view (Smart & Williams, 1973). The theory of utilitarianism asserts that

total pleasures emanate from an action where someone does not undergo any suffering and for an

action to be morally correct it should produce the greatest utility for all the affected persons.

According to the categorical imperative, utilitarianism affirms that an action is viewed as moral

if the answer is ‘yes’ to the question on if an action rationally applies to every human being in a

similar situation. Utilitarianism also advocates for impartiality. The doctrine of impartiality

maintains that welfare of every creature is equally morally valuable. As a consequently, the well-

being of an animal or a human being is as crucial as their counterparts. Therefore, the

utilitarianism posits that the importance of everyone’s well-being counts.

However, I find the utilitarian’s conclusion’s less plausible. The utilitarian theory fails to

explain basic moral judgments because it is a radically impartial view. It also fails to expand on

the basic moral judgment that we are supposed to consider the outcomes to establish if an act is

of moral value. In some instances, the results may take a very long time for them to manifest. It

shows how utilitarianism measures morality as self-defeating. Also, the utilitarian’s response is

unsatisfactory because it appears to put emphasis on and not the manner in which we arrive at

the results. Ordinarily, it is far much easier to act instinctively compared to calculating outcomes.

Another weakness of utilitarianism is that it focuses on the impartiality results. It upholds that the

well-being of every human must be counted equally. However, almost every person in the

society had a certain level of deep-seated prejudice against a particular social group, nationality,

ethnic class, or race. In my view it could be that utilitarianism promotes the prevalence of

prejudice and discrimination in the society. The theory also makes unreasonable demands by

requiring every individual to be strictly impartial as a disinterested benevolent spectator,

qualities which are very difficult to cultivate in a normal human being. Most people in today’s
MORAL VALUE 5

world prefer to live in a world that has relaxed moral code unlike the theory which demands for

the highest level of moral perfection.

Kantian Moral Theory

Kant’s moral theory was developed by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher. Kantian

perspective, which is a deontological ethical theory, is a normative ethical position that judges an

action’s morality based on rules. For Kant, the morality of our actions is dependent on our

intentions and reasons for action contained in the principles we live by (Poijman & Tramel,

2009, p. 216). The theory point out that goodness is a matter of promoting rightness. Kant’s

theory argues that the wrongness or rightness of an action is not dependent on their

consequences, but on if they accomplish our duty. No matter how much personal gain actions

brings, they can still be wrong, because they are unfair and unjust (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.154).

Therefore, it compares an individual’s actions against a particular duty. According to Kantians,

particular actions are absolutely not allowed, even in instances where the action would result in

more happiness compared to the alternative. In this perspective, compared to utilitarianism, the

Kantian perspective is better because it puts emphasis on the action’s character. We ought not to

focus on the consequences of actions, but on the actions themselves in order to establish what we

are morally supposed to do. Kant’s opinion on the relationship between morality and rationality

was that “when we act on a maxim that can’t be universalized, we are contradicting ourselves”

(Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.161). We reason badly when we behave immorally. In response to the

moralist challenge, if you act immorally, you are irrational because you do not care about the

rules. In my opinion, Kant’s view on morality was plausible. Most of the shortcomings in of

consequentialism are handled nicely by the Kantian theory. Since I do not agree with utilitarians,

I agree with Kant’s view because he is perhaps the most crucial opposition voice to
MORAL VALUE 6

utilitarianism, and to its claim that ultimate point of morality is to enhance the well-being rather

than justice. Most people agree with Kant’s idea that the morality of our actions depends on our

maxims, which is the principle of action one gives to his- or herself when about to do something.

Virtue Theory

The virtue ethical theory argues that a person is judged based on their character other

than by action, which may deviate from their normal behavior. A virtue is a character trait that is

socially valued. Virtues are derived from the right kind of actions because they are very crucial

in moral life. They give the dispositions that lead to the right action. The theory posits that a

virtue is derived from the principle of telling truth and also being sensitive to one’s responsibility

of being truthful, benevolent, and faithful (Poijman & Tramel, 2009, p. 299). Developed by

Aristotle, he was of the view that moral virtue is the only practical way to doing something

effective. An individual is considered to have good character if they have moral virtues and act

rationally. A virtuous person is base their decisions on reason and conscious in their mind, which

makes them to act in a particular manner when responding to similar circumstances. Unlike

Kant’s theory and utilitarianism, the virtue ethical theory takes into account a person’s

reputation, morals, and other irregular behaviors that may be regarded as unethical. Virtue

ethicists propose that character is more important than following rules and regulations something

that can be developed in schools.

However, I find the virtue theory explanation of moral value less plausible because the

theory maintains that virtue can be quantified, while I believe it is a false construct because

goodwill is immeasurable making it impossible to apply in real situations. It is equally important

to note that it is difficult to identify the virtues by just looking at a person as argued by the
MORAL VALUE 7

theory. I am also of the view that certain actions cannot be allowed, even in instances where the

action would cause more happiness compared to the alternative. In this perspective, if we reason

irrationally, then we behave immorally. It means that a person who acts immorally is irrational

because he or she does care about the rules something the virtue theory supports. Therefore, it it

commends certain behavior. Also, the theory makes general assumptions that ethical beliefs are

healthy, while upon scrutiny true beliefs can turn out to be false. Lastly, not every virtue is

cultivated in educational institutions, but may be as a result of instinct.

MORAL VALUE 8

References

Poijman, L., & Tramel, P. (2009). Moral philosophy. New York: Hackett Publishing Company.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smart, C., & Williams, B. (1973).Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.