1. The scope of ethics is the nature of human freedom.
It involves the virtue, law, conscience, and
duty. The moral obligation and responsibility for every action are also lie down in the scope of
ethics.
2. Theoretical ethics are concerned or focused with the standards, norms, qualities that define the
principles of ethical behavior. While practical ethics, it is meant to concern with substantive
moral issues we are facing each day.
3. Methaethics is the important branch of ethics that focused on the scope and foundation of
moral values and moral properties. It deals with morality. While normative ethics seeks to
provide us a framework of ethics or provide an action – guides; and tells us how we ought to live
our lives.
4. Cognitivism believe that morality is subject to cognition, something that exist in an objective
world meaning to say it describes the reality, so moral statements become factual statements
they are either objectively true or false and what is morally right and morally wrong can be
known. Non cognitivism is the opposite, the moral statements are not factual statements, and
they are not subject to truth and falsity morality then is merely subjective there are no objective
moral truths and because of this, morality cannot be known.
5. The 3 normative ethical theories are Deontological Theories, Teological Theories:, and
Relativism:.
In deontic ethics from the word ‘deon’ meaning obligation, it tells you what is your moral
obligations or duties. Focuses on the protection of individual and universal rights; it is more on
behavior rather than consequences. Theological ethics identify actions of moral correctness that
is seen as desirable. While relativism, there is no universal moral rules and it says that the moral
rules and principles has an equal value.
6. In consequentialism as the name suggests, it is concerned with consequences of particular
actions or rules, when deciding if they are good or not. Non-consequentialism claims that the
consequences do not enter into judging whether actions of people are moral or immoral.
M2t1
1. Moral standards refers to the set of rules or guidelines which may affect the choices of an
individual and also the belief system and the process of making decision in a problem or
situation that beg the question of what is morally right or wrong and what is good or bad. Non –
moral standards is like moral standards that refers to the rules but the major difference
between the two is that, non-moral standards is not linked to an ethical or moral consideration.
2. Killing people is one example of moral standards that involve behaviors which seriously affect
other well-being.
Example of non-moral standards is committing a grammatical error.
3. If we cannot distinguish the moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, we will not
be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may guide our actions. In result we
will be running the risk of falling into the hole of cultural reductionism and the
unnecessary imposition of one’s own cultural standard on others.
1. Moral dilemma is a situation wherein the person who is called the “moral agent” is being
asked to choose between two possible conflicting options, it is neither of which resolves the
problem in an acceptable manner.
What are the conditions that must be present to have a genuine moral dilemma?
The moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly
There must be two or more options of actions to choose from, for moral dilemmas to
occur.
Remember that no matter what option you take, some moral principles are
compromised. Meaning to say there is no always perfect solution to a problem.
In epistemic moral dilemmas it is hardly for the moral agent to determine which option will takes
judgment. He cannot easily identify which option is right or wrong. In order to determine which option is
the best, it requires broad understanding about the situation. Unlike ontological moral dilemmas, there
are two or more moral requirements that conflict each other, yet none of these overrides each other;
here in ontological moral dilemmas, the moral requirements are equal.
Self -imposed moral dilemma, from the word itself, it is a circumstances caused by the moral
agent’s wrongdoings. A created situation in which the agent is impossible to be discharged from
both obligations he made. While imposed on an agent by the world, means that certain events
in the world place the moral agent in a situation of moral conflict.
Obligation dilemmas are scenarios in which more than one possible action is required, while prohibition
dilemmas involve cases in which all possible actions are prohibited.
In single agent dilemma, the moral agent is oblige to act on two or more equally the same moral
options but cannot choose both. On the other hand, the multi-person dilemma happens in
situations that involve a group of persons such as family, organization, or a community who is
expected to come up with decision on a moral issue at hand.
General obligation is the main duty of moral agent, while role-related obligation is your promised duty
to a person or agreement.
In negotiable moral requirement we may have a conflict without producing
circumstances of moral failure: here, we can just simply choose the
most important thing, while in non-negotiable moral requirement are
those that are less important. But when the non-negotiable
requirements conflict, moral agents can find that he is failing no matter
which requirement he fulfill or choose.
When the moral agent cannot find a solution in a problem that will
satisfy him then, that’s the point when moral dilemmas arise. It also
arises due to the conflict in his personal, and social values.
