without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Shafer-Landau, Russ. The fundamentals of ethics I. The Fundamentals of Ethics 3rd Edition by Shafer-Landau - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf) or read book online. Ethics Book for an introduction to ehitcs. The Fundamentals Of Ethics Russ Shafer Landau - [Free] The Shafer Landau [ PDF] [EPUB] Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
In The Fundamentals of Ethics, Fourth Edition, author Russ Shafer-Landau employs a uniquely engaging writing style to introduce students to the essential ideas. In the choice of what have seemed to me to be the fundamentals of ethics, it has been necessary to reduce to a minimum the psychological and sociological. View Shafer enbillitaco.tk from PHILOSOPHY at Ohio State University. The Fundamentals of Ethics. m Second Edition % RUSS.
Recognize and disclose any conflicts of interest. Accept and offer constructive criticism. Detailed discus- sions on robotic ethics and the WPI code of ethics for robotics engineers can be found in [21, 22], and a useful discussion on ethics and modular robotics is pro- vided in .
Modern Western philosophers have developed other theories falling within the framework of analytic philosophy, which were described in the chapter. Actually, it is commonly recognized that there is an essential difference between ancient ethics and modern morality. For example, there appears to be a vital dif- ference between virtue theory and the modern moralities of deontological ethics 24 2 Ethics: Fundamental Elements Kantianism and consequential ethics utilitarianism.
But actually we can see that both ethical approaches have more in common than their stereotypes may suggest. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics and modern ethics theories can help to overcome present-day ethical problems and develop fruitful ethical reasoning and decision-making approaches. The dominating current approach that individuals or groups follow in their relations is the contract ethics which is an implementation of minimalist theory.
This approach is followed because the players have more to gain than not. References 1. Rachels J The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill, New York 2. Shafer-Landau R The fundamentals of ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford 3.
Singer P A companion to ethics.
Blackwell Publishers, Malden 4. Singer P Applied ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford 5. Hursthouse R On virtue ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford 6. Philosophy and Religion Department, Drury University. Darwall S ed Deontology. Blackwell, Oxford 8. Gilty T St. Thomas aquinas philosophical texts. Oxford University Press, Oxford 9. Stuart Mill, J Utilitarianism, 7th edn. Rawls J Theory of justice. Dewey J Theory of valuation. Chicago University Press, Chicago Jonsen A, Toulmin S The abuse of casuistry: a history of moral reasoning.
University of Press of America, Milburn Cengage Learning, Boston North T The Hippocratic Oath. National Library of Medicine. Percival T Medical ethics. Russel, Manchester Smyth T, Paper discussing ethics and modular robotics.
University of Pittsburgh www. Doubts about morality are plentiful, and it would be silly to ignore them in a book that is so focused on trying to improve our moral under— standing. Chapters 19, 20, and 21 are entirely devoted to such doubts; those who feel them acutely might do best to start with those chapters, and then work your way to the other parts. For now, let me say just a few things to the doubters.
Perhaps the most important is this: There are lots of problems with such views. Some of these problems may be devastating. We must follow the arguments where they leha.
They may indeed lead us ultimately to embrace such positions. In my experience, most of those who harbor serious doubts about morality base their skeptrctsm on one or more of the following considerations: If there were some objective truth in ethics, then we should expect all really smart people to agree on it.
They don t. B There are universally correct moral standards only if God eXists. And thats because not mg 11 is ri ht or Wron. D lfthre wire a univerial ethic, then that would make it okay for some people to impose their own views on others.
But thats not okay at all. Therefore there is no universal ethic. E If there were objective moral rules, then it would always be wrong to break them.
But every rule admits of exceptions; no moral rule is absolute. That shows that we do make up the moral rules after all.
This is going to sound like cheating, but here goes: Still, there is a lesson here: Introduction 5 what is good and right. Doing moral philosophy can help with this. Look at it this way. Lots of people believe that when it comes to art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder—w there are no objective, universal stan— dards of good taste. And suppose that morality is just like art in this respect. Still, our tastes can be educated and improved. Many people are much wiser than I am about music and painting, for instance.
Even if there are no universal standards of good taste, it would be silly of me to pass up a chance to talk with them. Why should I dismiss their opinions and refuse to hear them out? Maybe I could learn a thing or two. Especially when so much is at stake—the very quality of our life and our relations with oth— ers—it would be terrible to close our minds to new and challenging ideas.
Those who have thought so hard about the central questions of existence may well have something to teach us. I encourage you to resist the diagnosis that in ethics, anything goes. Though it is sometimes hard to know when we have got it right in ethics, it is often very easy to know when we or others have made a mistake. We should keep that in mind before siding too quickly with a skepticism that says that all moral views are as good as every other.
Ethical Starting Points One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to begin. They believe that moral reasoning is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no moral views are any better than others. We should accept it only as a last resort. And even if morality is in some way a human invention, there is.
There are reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live. Here are some of them: Neither does tradition. Actions that are legal, or customary, are sometimes istaken.
Views, and no human being is wholly wise when it comes to mora - 2: Having friends is a good thing.
Friendships add value to your life. You are better off when there are peop e you care deeply about, and who care deeply about you. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can deman on y so much of us. Moral standards that are impossrble to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect our limitations. Children hear less moral responsibility than adults. The fewer of these abilities you have, the less blameworthy might cause. Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply suspect.
It is important that we get what we deserve, and that we are treated fairly. People who are alike in all relevant respects should get similar treatment.
When this fails to happen when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then some— thing has gone wrong. How well-off we are is important. Morality sometimes calls on us to set aside our own interests for the sake of others. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is bad. It may Introduction 7. That a person can escape punishment is one thing—whether his actions are morally acceptable is another.
Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. There are a number of points to make about these claims. Second, I am not claiming that the items on this list are beyond criti— cism. I am saying only that each one is very plausible. The point, though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly reasonable to begin with the items on this list. When we say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated equally, we leave all of the interesting questions open.
What makes people equals? Can we treat people equally without treating them in precisely the same way? Not only do we have a variety of plausible starting points for our ethi— cal investigations; we also have a number of obviously poor beginnings for moral thinking. A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on how you look at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one.
Any morality worth the name will place some importance on justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness. Moral Reasoning In addition to these remarks about appropriate and inappropriate start— ing points for ethical thinking, we should also note that some common errors can undermine moral reasoning.
These errors serve as further evi— dence that not everything is up for grabs wheh it comes to ethics.
An argument is simply any chain of thought in which reasons philosophers call these premises are offered in support of a particular conclusion. Not all arguments are equally good.
This is as true in ethics as it is sci— ence, mathematics, or politics. We can land at the wrong conclusion by endorsing child abuse, for instance.
We can also arrive at the right one by means of terrible reasoning. We must do our best to avoid both of these mistakes. We want the truth, both in the starting assumptions we bring to an issue and in the conclusions we eventually arrive at.
But we also want to make sure that our views are supported by excellent reasons. And this pro, Vides two tests for good moral reasoning: I we must avoid false beliefs, and 2 the logic of our moral thinking must be rigorous and error—free. He is lazy and improvident. What more can be required of Slavery, in reference to the negro, than has been done? It supports him in comfort and peace. It restrains his Vices. It improves his mind, morals and manners. Africans, and those of African descent, are not 2.
Richard H. Bleakley, , p. But it is possible to develop moral arguments that fail, even though every Single one of their premises is true. The failure is of the second sort mentioned above: a failure of logic. Consider this argument: 1. Heroin is a drug. Selling heroin is illegal. Therefore, heroin use is immoral. This is a moral argument. It is a set of reasons designed to support a moral concluswn.
Both of the premises are true. Perhaps the use of illegal drugs such as heroin really is immoral. But we need a further reason to think so-we would need, for instance, the additional claim that all drug use is immoral or the separate claim that any illegal activity is also morally wrong.
The argument in its present form is a poor one. But not because it on false claims.