"Moral Wisdom Seems to Be as Little Connected to Knowledge of Ethical Theory as Playing Good Tennis Is to Knowledge of Physics" (Emrys Westacott). to What Extent Should Our Actions Be Guided by Our Theories in Ethics and Elsewhere?
"Moral wisdom seems to be as little connected to knowledge of ethical theory as playing good tennis is to knowledge of physics" (Emrys Westacott). To what extent should our actions be guided by our theories in ethics and elsewhere?
The question is with regards to whether moral reasoning is more accurate compared to the -theory-based knowledge of science. I think that ethical theory should be used for our moral conduct while the sciences should be used in other areas of knowledge instead. Thus, this essay will discuss on to whether our actions should be guided by our theories in ethics. Moral reasoning is expecting people justifying their value-judgements and support them with reasons. However, the limitation of the ethical theory is that we expect people to be consistent in their moral judgements just as we expect them to be consistent in their judgements in other areas of knowledge. Some people might not be consistent and this is complicated by the fact that they might not only apply moral rules inconsistently, but also hold inconsistent principles. To illustrate the plausibility of the ethnic thesis, let us take a look at one such thought experiment-trolley problem:
"A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track.
Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"
A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to flip the switch. According to simple utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).
An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible
The question is with regards to whether moral reasoning is more accurate compared to the -theory-based knowledge of science. I think that ethical theory should be used for our moral conduct while the sciences should be used in other areas of knowledge instead. Thus, this essay will discuss on to whether our actions should be guided by our theories in ethics. Moral reasoning is expecting people justifying their value-judgements and support them with reasons. However, the limitation of the ethical theory is that we expect people to be consistent in their moral judgements just as we expect them to be consistent in their judgements in other areas of knowledge. Some people might not be consistent and this is complicated by the fact that they might not only apply moral rules inconsistently, but also hold inconsistent principles. To illustrate the plausibility of the ethnic thesis, let us take a look at one such thought experiment-trolley problem:
"A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety.
Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track.
Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"
A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to flip the switch. According to simple utilitarianism, flipping the switch would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all).
An alternate viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible