Moral Realism and Meta-Ethics

From an evaluative and academic perspective, the theoretical perspectives associated with those of the normative ethical consideration based concepts of the idea of Morality could be considered to be multifarious and multidimensional in nature. Regarding the moral compulsions which could drive any individual in respect to the general actions and interactions with others, the influence and significance of Normative ethical theoretical constructs could be comprehended regarding the examination of the standards through which the acceptability and disapprovability of the human behaviour could be assessed. In this respect, Allen (2016) has highlighted difference of Normative ethical considerations from the of the Meta-ethics based evaluations since the later is primarily concerned about the metaphysical aspects of the overall concept of morality. Normative ethical perspectives are as well distinct from those of the applied ethical concepts since the later concentrates on the perceived appropriateness of social existence and human behavioural dynamics from a generalised spectrum. This does not correspond to the specifics of particular issues such as acceptability of actions which could be considered to be not acceptable under usual conditionalities such as abortion within any national perspective where the religious inclinations are mostly associated absorb all opposites within itself. Students seeking a deeper understanding of these concepts may benefit from philosophy dissertation help to further explore Anaximander's ideas and their implications.

As per the opinion of Darwall (2018), the difference between the implications of Normative ethical considerations and those of the Descriptive ethics could be as well considered to be significant regarding the delineation of the various aspects of Morality as a definitive concept. Such a difference could be underlined in the manner of the overt and almost exclusive association of the Descriptive ethics with the process of investigating the predominance of the moral beliefs of the general social populace in an empirical manner. According to Everett, Pizarro and Crockett (2016), such distinctive features have lent the alternative evaluation to the Normative ethical perspectives of being prescriptive in nature, as far as the theoretical constructs are to be understood.

According to the research of Fryer (2016), regarding the concepts and actualities of Morality as a socio-psychological perceptive structure, the meta-ethical considerations regarding the aspect of moral realism as well as moral facts are to be understood in the manner of having a primarily conflicting duality where both the moral realism and factors could be considered to be descriptive and prescriptive at the same time. In this context, Gregor (2017) has pointed out the research observation that the majority of the moral theoretical constructs, which have been traditionally observed, could be considered to have been formulated on the principles which are generally utilised within the social context for the determination of the rightness or wrongness of any specific or a general sequence of actions. To this effect, the classical theories of Morality, by the opinion of Wood (2017), could be comprehended to include such constructs such as Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory and Kantianism or Kantian Ethics and even those which are reflective of the propositions of the Contractarianism. The entire spectrum of such theories is primarily associated with the application of moral principles and existing conventions which are overarching in terms of their extent of utilisation for the purpose of resolving the moral decisions which could be precarious and difficult to a great measure.In terms of such observations, the prospect of the Kantian Ethical concepts could be considered, from the research perspective of Guyer (2014), to be best suited to provide the most in depth and explanatory understanding regarding the concept of Morality. According to Habermas (2015), the Kantian ethics constitute the specific Deontological theoretical construct concerning the considerations of Ethics which were propounded by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. This theory had been developed under the influence of Enlightenment based Rationalism. Kant had delineated the prospects associated with morality in the manner which could be understood to be the proposition that the solitary element of goodness, which could be appreciated in an intrinsic manner, is the intention or will of the socially active individuals. In terms of the values of morality regarding specific actions, according to Hassner (2015), Kant had stated that any such action could be good in only one circumstance which could be understood in the manner of the maxim or principle which could formulate the basis of such an action, being verifiable or justifiable under the laws of morality. In this regard, the composition of the moral legalities, under the observations of Kant, could be better understood in the manner of imperatives which could be considered to be categorical as well. Such imperatives had been formulated by Kant in the manner of unitary process where the interests and desires of individuals could be ascribed to a lesser significance. Various methods had been utilised by Kant to formulate the categorical imperatives. In this context, Kagan (2018), brings forth the concept of universalization which could require the realisation of the possibility of application of such a concept to the entire humanity without having to encounter any contradiction. This universal applicability is extensively stressed upon by Kantian ethical process so as to evaluate the permissibility of any action. However, with the emergence of any significant contradiction, the Aristotelian dictate of non-existence of any contraction could be soundly violated since such propositions are of the opinion that actions could not be able to lead to any contradiction in any solitary manner. Furthermore, Kagan (2018), states that the formulation of the structural dimensions of humanity, which constitutes the next section of the imperatives envisioned by Kant in the most categorical manner, could be indicative of the proposition that human beings are never required to consider others as only means to any end. On the contrary, it is the idea of being an end in itself, which could prompt human beings to consider others as essential ends in themselves. This could be, according to Kant (2017), further explained through the realisation of the formulation of autonomy. This concept generally acknowledges the fact that rational agents of morality are mostly controlled by the moral laws on a voluntary basis. On the contrary, according to Wood (2017), the concept of the Kingdom of Ends had been formulated by Kant and this specific construct puts forward the fact that Kant had envisaged that human beings generally undertake various actions with the presumption that the principles of such actions could establish the legal validity any hypothetical kingdom or structure of operations. Furthermore, Kant also established, in Kant (2018), the distinctive concepts regarding the imperfect as well as the perfect duties. In terms of examples, the instance of perfect duties could be understood to be the responsibility of desisting from perpetration of any form of deception. On the other hand, an imperceptive duty generally indicates those responsibilities which could be utilised in a flexible manner and could be thus made applicable regarding the particular place and time of convenience on part of the perpetrator of such duties. One instance could be outlined as the handing out of donations to different charitable organisations.

Furthermore, Immanuel Kant had also provided the argument, according to Liu (2017),that the Categorical Imperative is mostly indicative of the standards of rationality which could pervade the ultimate principles associated with Morality. As per the observations of Rae (2018), Categorical Imperative could be characterised in the manner of an objective and essentially rational principle which could be unconditional in essential measures. The necessity of always following the Categorical Imperative could be considered to be imperative on everyone within any society and this dictates the complete disregard of any individual inclination or desire which could be harboured by anyone which could be contrary to the stipulations of the moral principles associated with the Categorical Imperative.

Notably, Kant has outlined the fact that all of the specificities regarding the moral requirements could be justified within the ambit of such a principle. This could be furthermore delineated as the definite supposition of the immorality of all of the actions which could be contrary to rationality since these could be as well contrary to the Categorical Imperative. According to Kant (2018), various other philosophers such as Aquinas, Locke as well as Hobbes had also attested to the supposition that requirements associated with Morality in general could be based on the measures of rationality which could be considered to be the observed standards within any social perspective. Nonetheless, it could be observed from the research of Sensen (2015), that such standards of morality could be utilised either as principles instrumental for rationality regarding the meeting of the requirements of any particular person or as extrapolative principles for promoting rationality. In case of the first one, the satisfaction of the desires of any particular person could be directly related to the research perceptions propounded by Hobbes. In case of the next one, the rationality of the external principles is directly related to the research related standpoints of Locke and Aquinas.

Furthermore, the research of Sherman (2014), has revealed that Kant often had agreed with the preceding philosophers regarding the analytical standpoint based presumptions of practical reasoning. Such observations brought forth the considerations that it is always necessary from the rational agents to conform to the principles on which the idealisation of Morality could be achieved. In this respect, Kant preferred the observed argument that conformity to various principles of morality, which could be non-instrumental, such as that of Categorical Imperative, could be perceived to be essential from the perspective of the rational interpretation of morality. This specific promulgation of interpretations of Morality by Kant could be considered to be the most effective measure through which the entire spectrum of morality could be better understood from the perspective of an academic investigator. This could be better explained, according to Van Ackeren and Sticker (2015), in the manner that the significant doctrine of any rational will being autonomous or independent to the extent where it could lead to particular interpretations of the nature of morality, could be definitive regarding the establishment of the sense of the binding principles on which the acceptability or disapproving aspects of any human action could be considered.

The above delineated discussion has been appropriately reflective of the research observation that the fundamental aspect of morality could be considered to be the principle of Categorical Imperative. This is only, as has been opined by Westermarck (2017), an alternative expression of the process of the human autonomous will which lies at the heart of the discussions related to the moral philosophy propounded by Immanuel Kant. This could as well be explained in the manner that the interpretation of Morality, under the Kantian ethical philosophy could be outlined as the conception of reason which could be congruent with the greater significance of human autonomous intents. The theoretical construct is thus not only constricted to the preceding arguments of Human Beings remaining only salves to their senses and personal desires. The implications are much greater in terms of extent. The preceding research study has thus concisely outlined the nature and evaluation of Morality and the Normative ethical concepts of Kant which has so far outlined the fact that the factor of self-governing reason could be considered to be decisive element through which the worth of any decision or action could be perceived in terms of the moral principles observed within the concurrent social perspectives.

Reference List

Allen, A., 2016. The end of progress: Decolonizing the normative foundations of critical theory. Columbia University Press.

Darwall, S., 2018. Philosophical Ethics: An Historical and Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.

Everett, J.A., Pizarro, D.A. and Crockett, M.J., 2016. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), p.772.

Fryer, M., 2016. A role for ethics theory in speculative business ethics teaching. Journal of business ethics, 138(1), pp.79-90.

Gregor, M.J., 2017. Kant’s Conception of a “Metaphysic of Morals “. In Immanuel Kant (pp. 13-26). Routledge.

Habermas, J., 2015. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hassner, P., 2015. Raymond Aron and Immanuel Kant: Politics between Morality and History. In The Companion to Raymond Aron (pp. 197-203). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Kagan, S., 2018. Normative ethics. Routledge.

Kant, I., 2017. Kant: The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I., 2018. Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals. Litres.

Kant, I., 2018. Introduction to the Metaphysic of Morals. Charles River Editors via PublishDrive.

Liu, X., 2017. Mencius, Hume and the foundations of ethics. Routledge.

Rae, S., 2018. Moral choices: An introduction to ethics. Zondervan.

Sensen, O., 2015. Kant on Human Dignity reconsidered. Kant-Studien, 106(1), pp.107-129.

Sherman, N., 2014. The place of emotions in Kantian morality. In Kant on Emotion and Value (pp. 11-32). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Van Ackeren, M. and Sticker, M., 2015. Kant and moral demandingness. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(1), pp.75-89.

Westermarck, E., 2017. Ethical relativity. Routledge.

Wood, A., 2017. The final form of Kant’s practical philosophy. In Immanuel Kant (pp. 27-47). Routledge.

Wood, A.W., 2017. How a Kantian Decides What to Do. In The Palgrave Kant Handbook (pp. 263-284). Palgrave Macmillan, London.