The Ethical Continuum :: Essays Papers

The Ethical Continuum An April 2002 honorableity survey conducted by Zogby worldwide included the question, which of the following statements about moral doctrine was most often contractable by your professors, but it provided only two answer choices a full general definition of absolutism and a specific definition of relativism.1 The pollsters, along with many an(prenominal) who contemplate the issue, commit a false dichotomy and blind themselves by seeing relativism and absolutism as black and white. Contrary to the beliefs of moral nihilists and Kantians, ethics need not be ruled by extreme point definitions of relativism or absolutism. If, instead, the two theories are juxtaposed as opposite ends of a continuum, because a more moderate approach to ethics leads visible which represents a true compromise between relativism and absolutism. For purposes of this essay, the most enlightened approach to ethics must be intellectu eachy sound and promise positive moral progress. Deontological theories, which take right and wrong as primary, stand at the extreme end of the absolutist side of the moral continuum, and the most well know of the ultimate principles embraced by moral objectivism is Immanuel Kants categorical imperative.2 In his of import Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant undertakes the absolutists quest for a supreme principle of morality, and after(prenominal) meticulous consideration of tender-hearted exit and rational decision making, he declares that people should only commit acts that they could also go out that their maxim should become a universal law.3 The categorical imperative is one of philosophys best attempts to provide an absolute principle, but when scrutinized, this famous say-so is not universal or logical. As one of the Enlightenments greatest proponents, Kant heralds the presence of equivalent rational thought in entirely men and develops his theories with an optimistic assessment of the moral knowledge of vernacular human reason.4 This proposed parity creates problems with the categorical imperative because Kant believes that common reason produces common decision making, void of emotional considerations. However, the categorical imperative requires people to will certain actions, and what people will is unquestionably determined by desire, a purely emotional thought. Although Kant attempts to ensure the universality of his principle by removing all subjective motives, such as emotion, he incorrectly associates the human will with rational thought instead of desire.