Emotivism is the meta-ethical outlook that argues that ethical phrases do not show propositions, but they imply various emotional attitudes. Emotivism is a form of expressivism or non-cognitivist concept. Emotivism opposes all other forms of non-cognitivist like quasi-realism and cognitivist such as moral realism.
Consequentialism consists of the normative ethics theories that argue that consequences of an individual’s conduct are the primary basis necessary for any judgment made if an idea is wrong or right. From the consequentialist viewpoint, any right act is the one that produces the perfect outcome or consequences. For any goal to be morally significant, it must support the use of a given method to achieve its success.
Non-consequentialism is a normative ethical theory denying that the wrongness and rightness of a particular conduct are mainly determined by how right or wrong the consequence of an action or to the rules the acts conforms. In this concept, there is the support that consequences can be an important factor when determining if an action is right, but insists the effects of two different acts may be the same though one can be right while the other is wrong.
Prescriptivism is the moral judgments and instructions or proposals of how things ought to be done. In other words, prescriptivism says that ethical judgments are instructions or recommendations on how things should be done (Gensler, 48).
In the four ethical positions, I find prescriptivism the most appealing approach. An example is when my parent used defined set of rules to be followed when I was a child. My parents enforced the rules by being good role model in all the rules. I was supposed to abstain from all alcoholic drinks. However, my parents always enforced this rule and also practiced the same. Therefore, if parents and leaders do what is morally right, the other members of the society will follow in the footsteps. This will in return lead to a society which is ethically upright. In prescriptivism, it is hence clear whoever gives instructions or proposals for a moral judgment should always be committed to the same magnitude of ruling in any situation. Therefore, he or she will have to behave in the most ethically acceptable manner to enforce his or her rules (Gensler, 47).
The moral position that I find least appealing to my ethical position is Consequentialism. Consequentialism is an ethical position that determines the correctness or the wrongness of actions based on the outcomes or the consequences of that action (Gensler, 48). However, in this case, we only have one primary duty: to do what brings best results in regards to the rule of the thumb. The best example is when I was in high school and I reported a bully student who was subsequently expelled from the school. From most of students bullying was acceptable and so they considered me a traitor. My action however, helped in reducing bullying in the institution. We ought to do actions that maximize goodness in every outcome. Consequentialism tends to be an individualist position for personal gain. Everyone does what will give him or her optimum results regardless of the effects of his or her decision on the other members of the society (Gensler, 48).
In conclusion, I choose to base my ethical decision on the social well-being of all in society. I believe that any decision I make concerning the community should not be a setback to the society. An example is ensuring the community resources such as water and land is well utilized and no pollution is caused. In my work, I have chosen prescriptivism to be the best ethical theory to be applied in any society. It is very clear that, in prescriptivism, there is no room for impunity. The concept ensures I uphold the moral statement recommended including those in authority such as obedience to laws and regulations of the society. In my view, I would not recommend to any community to use Consequentialism to determine their moral standards and judgments. Consequentialism promotes selfish gains from greedy people in the society.
Work cited
Baum&Gregory. “Nationalism,Religion, and Ethics”. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001(pg 39).
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics. London: Routledge, 1998. (pg 47-48).
