Proving A Moral Principle :: Philosophy Philosophical Morals Essays

Proving A Moral Principle Once whizz has examined an ethical surmise and knows what its fundamental concepts are what kinds of factors are to be utilise in making honourable judgments, whether its principles apply directly to acts or rules, and what concepts of the trusty life is proposed one is certainly in a better stance to judge which of any the competitive principles comes closest to fulfilling the task of giving a complete account of good phenomena. Unfortunately this may not be enough to enable us to choose among them. Most of the classical principles do a reasonably good job of supplying a rationale for most if not all of our moral judgments. Yet the principles are very much incompatible with one other. Must we then decide among them not just on the basis of their adequacy to explain and justify moral judgments that on the basis of simple preference, i.e. because we like one better than another? We are more likely to believe a moral theory that says that most of our moral beliefs are correct, then one that says that most of our moral beliefs are inconsistent. Of course no theory will make them all come out true. We have to balance the question of our philosophical one thousand for believing that the moral theory is in fact true that it corresponds to the demands that real exist for us in reality rather than merely beingness an accurate codification of what we happen to believe. It could still turn out that the true moral theory, the theory that comes closest to capturing the things one actually ought or ought not to do, coheres less(prenominal) well with our ordinary moral beliefs than another theory which is less revisionary in its consequences. The issue Im addressing is the proof of a set of moral principles, the proof of the asperity of a moral outlook or theory. Various attempts have been make to avoid this seemingly irrational consequence by supplying what very much have been referred to as proofs of moral principles. The term proof as so used had a widely variable meaning but in general what is intended is a set of considerations, other than the internal consistence and adequacy of the theory, which are particularly persuasive in making a choice of one theory or principle over another. in that respect have been several different kinds of such proofs.