Good Essay On The Issue Of Universality In Ethics

Universal Ethics is a set of values that apply to all humans, whether religious or secular, independent from any particular faith. The compilation of Universal Ethics is not a base for a new religion. In precise, it does not say anything about liturgical or philosophical notions of any categories. That means that it does not elucidate the existence of the Universe with inclusion of a man’s existence. It does not suggest any precise ritual in addition it does not deal with the concept of God. It does not contain any stories, myths, or absolute doctrines. Most significantly, Universal Ethics does not prescribe any formal changes for any future creed or existing.
Universal Ethics is a kind of Moral Constitution that articulates a set of specific ethical principles to be acceptable to all people. Under this ‘constitution’, all secular groups or religions can either develop or maintain their own additional ethical values. In philosophy, universalism is a policy that is claiming universal evidence can be discovered and is, therefore, understood as being in antagonism to relativism ethics. When universality is used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal ethics talks about to what is true for all people? Ethics is one of the principles and forces shaping and govern the life of human societies. Therefore, the distinctive understanding of universalism in ethic is that ethical ideologies are values for the human societies.
In philosophy, universality is the quality associated and recognized to an object whose existence is reliable throughout the universe. The meaning of ethics, of what is good and what makes an action to be right or wrong differs widely at different places and times. Nevertheless, some rudimentary moral fundamentals are candidly acceptable to most advanced societies. Additionally, several contemporary scholastic writers protect the absolute universality of at least some ethical laws. In recent days, it is appropriate to search for values for the universality of ethics in environmental considerations. The limitations of universality survive in war and race discrimination. In current days, it might be appropriate to the pursuit for principles for the universality of morality in ecological reflections. Improvement in morals is lagging far behind; therefore, there is a need to understand when the comprehensive extinction of human species is a real opportunity that philosophy and ethics are at least as significant as science. The key objective of the contemporary volume is to show that current ethical thought on universalizability is complicated and alive hence it is making advances.
The paper candidly and comprehensively elucidates that there indeed some universal ethics values that help everyone to achieve the happiness which most people aspire to have. Kant believed that the problem of ethical behavior was created by the contrast of human nature. Subsequently, humans are both intellectual and sensible, and at the same time they are motivated by impulse. Therefore, they must be guided by rules of conduct to balance the two. Kant believed that every person could decide what is wrong and right based on the will behind the act, rather than the action itself. According to philosophers’ discussion of universality in ethics, they distinguished two types of universality by the content of the statements. First, they said abstract analysis of ethical notions is above all happiness and virtue. Second, there is a connection between ethical notions and aspect of reality.
According to the formula of the universal law of nature by Kant, states that the act on that maxim via which people can at the same time will that it ought to convert to be a universal law. Maxim is the principle or rule in which a person acts on. Reorganize that maxim as a universal law of nature leading all normal agents, as well as holding that all must, by natural law, performance as proposers to act in these situations. The maxim of committing suicide in order to avoid future unhappiness is not in the Kant’s third step. Kant also said that the maxim of refusing not to give a hand on others passes the contradiction in concept text. However, it fails the inconsistency in the will test. Therefore, people have a duty to some extent to assist and aid others. Kant held that normal ethical thought recognized moral duties toward people. Act in agreement with the maxims of an affiliate giving universal laws for a simply possible kingdom of ends. Kant discovered that social and culture factors determine the universal opinion, for instance, in individual virtues courage is frequently such and such. Universal opinions of the first level are reinforced by the same factors. However, through reflexive understanding, courage is a virtue, and virtue is a fixed nature of the character. Universal views of the first level are maintained by reflection that connects them to facets of reality.
In conclusion, from Aristotle, moral rules are universal rules. He also said that the universal ethic is a derivative from two sets of grounds. First point is an empirical proposition and seconds the criteria. Human beings are all equal. Therefore, they are considered independent. The premises of independence are based on the mutual observation that human biology is such that each person thinks and feels, and functions as an independent being. Independence in human implies that values are subjective while equality gives human values an equal moral standing. From the analysis, everyone has a personal ethic by which any act that one can imagine or that one experiences have a determined moral value. Therefore, everyone can designate any activity as evil, neutral, or good according to his or her personal ethic.
Universality in ethics has fallen on hard times. After almost two decades of deconstructionist, feminist, postmodernist, and another version of conceptualizes criticism resulting to universality I ethics sounding indefensible and outdated. How can people come to know and understand what the universal morals are? For ethics to be truly absolute and universal, therefore, there was a need for individual to have a universally unquestioned source, authority, and interpretation, which critics claim, is impossibility. The absolute diversity of moral opinions exists between societies as well as even within societies it in the current world does suggest that there cannot be a single universal ethics. Philosophers are disputing the normative grounds upon which universal moral respect can be reasonably defended. The extent and content of nominal rights entailed by such moral respect are also sources of contention and disagreement. This has become hard to defend the nominal content that is associated with these two principles of universal moral respect as well as human rights as the possibility of justifying rationally.
Not all coercively harmful acts are designed as universal ethics, and the harm can be indirect, and, on the other hand, universal ethics can be indirect. An indirect harm occurs when someone suffers because of another person’s pursuit of his life. The second type consists of real versus hypothetical acts; for instance, when someone carries a knife can harm someone else. However, the act does not harm itself. From the universality in ethics, the following morals statements are derived. An act becomes good if only it become a beneficial to others. An act can be evil if only it can be coercively harmed other people by creating an actual, and direct invasion. The study also concluded that all other acts are neutral. If an act comprises evil and good elements, the good cannot cancel out the evil in the act. The paper concludes the importance of universality and its varieties in Kant and Aristotle. One advantage of the model of universality is that it enables one to make room for particularism concerns. All morality grounds in the lived life of the community. However, reflection on this morality can well situate it in a universal context.