Related questions:
v What is the moral standard? Discuss.
v Is there a moral standard? Critically evaluate.
 |
(...YOUR INTRODUCTION)
NORMATIVE ETHICS
Ethics as a discipline can be classified into two broad aspects namely “meta-ethics” and “normative ethics”. Normative ethics is the aspect of Ethics which deals with the Norms, standards and principles of human behaviour. In other words, it is the core of ethics. The central problem in “normative ethics” is its fundamental question of “what is the moral standard?”
WHAT IS THE MORAL STANDARD
This is a fundamental question under the umbrella of normative ethics that is concerned about the yardstick for deciding which actions are virtuous or vicious. Basically, the moral authority of parents and elders are objectively accepted by the young generation as the moral standard. However, on a closer scrutiny, due to intellectual maturity, one will surely discover some questionable ideals among them. Nevertheless, this fundamental question has been answered in various ways. These are evaluated below;
· Social Custom
This is the basic moral standard for some people. However, it has some inherent faults, as some traditions which were approved right by social custom in the past have been proven to be morally wrong in recent times. For example; the custom of slavery. Therefore, social custom cannot solely be the moral standard.
· The Law
Generally speaking, law is a standard of morality such that a man who is law-abiding is basically a morally upright man and vice-versa. Nonetheless, some laws could be in conflict with moral principles as they could be unjust, oppressive or immoral. For example; laws on racial discrimination and laws on same sex marriage. Therefore, laws cannot solely be the moral standard.
· Revelation
Universally, religious people believe and claim that God himself has revealed to mankind what is morally good and morally bad. In accordance, the major challenge is that there are conflicting accounts from the various religious groups, in very many areas, as regards the revelation of the moral standard. For example; polygamy. On this basis, revelation cannot be taken as the moral standard.
· Pleasure
The hedonists (like Aristippus Epicurus etc) have misconceived pleasure as the objective moral standard, saying anything that gives pleasure is morally good and vice-versa. This is a hasty generalization as vices like adultery and rape would be seen as morally right (good) according to this theory. Hence, pleasure cannot solely be the moral standard.
· Right reason
Whatever is in agreement with right reason (common sense) is the moral standard. This was postulated by philosophers such as the stoics. Ironically, it is too vague a concept to be considered the moral standard as various sound intellectuals and scholars can argue for or against the morality of some actions such as abortion and euthanasia. Thus, right reason is not the sole moral standard.
· Intuition
Also perceived as the “abstract moral sense” in this context, the “intuitionist” school holds it as the moral standard. It analyses that just as we spontaneously recognize things with our sense organs, we can also distinguish by intuition the virtuousness or viciousness of actions. However, intuition and its perception are relative and subjective among individuals as they all have differing intuitive opinions regarding issues. For example; the use of Contraceptives. Thus, can we then make intuition the moral standard? No!
· Conscience
Colloquially referred to as the “voice of God” or the “inner light”, an internal guide telling us what is right or wrong. But, various factors affect ones conscience, thus making it always subjectively right even when it is objectively wrong. Even the bible recognises the fact that one’s conscience can be smeared as with a hot iron. However, according to philosophers like saint Thomas Aquinas, since man has a natural moral obligation to follow his conscience (what is referred to as one’s mind) it would be an erroneous act to establish conscience as the moral standard.
· Universalizability
This is the ethical principle of Immanuel Kant. It operates according to the ideology of “putting oneself in others” shoes”. For example, if I desire to steal to buy food to quench my hunger, I should stop and ask myself; “would it be desirable, if it were to become a universal law that all men in a similar situation should perform such similar action? If it becomes obvious that its underlying principle cannot be willed honestly as a universal law, then such an action is morally wrong; and vice-versa. In accordance, Hegel criticized Kant’s ethics saying, this universalization theory cannot prove actions right or wrong. This is because, it already assumes and presupposes that an action in question is right or wrong. Thus, the fact that a person is trying to see the principle of his action possibly become a universal law, does not mean that the action in question is morally right. Consequently, Universalizability cannot hold as the sole moral standard.
(YOUR PERSONAL CRITICISMS)
CONCLUSION
One a general conclusive note, it is a fact that no one moral standard is the final solution to moral problems. This appraises the role of the ethical definition of philosophy as the continuous search for value and the best forms of life. Every moral principle is a mixed blessing and has its unique loopholes. Nevertheless, there is consolation, as the various moral standards collectively guide general moral decisions.
