Values The word "value" refers to the perceived worth of a thing. An expensive sports car has financial value because people are willing to pay money to own it. Honesty has moral value because many people see those who are honest as having more worth than those who are not, and because some people are willing to make personal sacrifices to achieve honesty. If the owner of a car dealership values integrity but his top salesperson values victory in competition, the owner cannot necessarily count on the integrity of his salesperson.
Tweet This post examines how natural lawyers view the connection between facts about human nature and ethical norms. The article is relatively short and covers three key points. First, it considers an incorrect view of the relationship between facts about human nature and ethical norms.
Second, it considers a more correct view of that relationship. And third, it addresses some intramural theological worries about knowledge of basic moral principles. The Wrong View of the Connection The wrong view of the connection between human nature and ethical norms is the simplest view.
And the simplest view is the one that stipulates that whatever is natural is equivalent to what is moral. In the specific case of human nature this means that whatever it is the human beings do naturally e. All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee; All chance, direction, which thou canst not see All discord, harmony not understood, All partial evil, universal good: He uses an example to make his point.
Suppose the natural function of speech is to communicate the truth as one sees it. Lying would then be a corruption of the natural faculty. Does it follow that lying is morally wrong? There are countless other objections not raised by Lee, e.
The Aristotelians do not believe that all human natural functions are guides as to what is morally right. Rather, they believe that only those natural functions that are distinctively human are guides to what is morally right.
They usually single out the faculty of reason as being the distinctively human faculty. And they propose that we ought to develop this faculty as much as possible in order to live the good life.
Lee rejects the Aristotelian view too. He does so on the ground that the Aristotelians are wrong to think that all aspects of our natures other than the capacity for rationality are shared with other animals.
For example, although it is true to say that animals other than human beings have the capacity for reproduction, it wrong to say that it is the same capacity across all species.
But since I care more about his positive views than his negative views I shall move on. The Nature of a Being: Lee thinks it is wrong to think that human beings do not have natures. He knows that some existentialists maintain that humans have no intrinsic natures and that they are completely free to determine their own tendencies and life plans, but he thinks that even the existentialist must admit to the reality of an intrinsic nature.
Well, prior to implementing their freely chosen life plans, the existentialist will have to have acknowledged the differences between them and their surroundings, and to have taken note of the predictable ways in which they are affected by those surroundings. This requires the implied recognition of an intrinsic nature.
The presence of an intrinsic nature has ramifications for freedom of choice. For when we choose among options, the possibilities are set by our nature; and when we act, we are actualising one of our natural potentialities or tendencies.
Natural law theorists see the actualisation of our potentialities and tendencies as being the key to understanding the relationship between human nature and ethical norms. Our natural tendencies and potentialities are complex, but limited. Their actualisation is what constitutes the good for beings like us.
Natural law theorists thus call the actualisations of our natural potentialities tendencies the basic goodsand these are the mark of what is moral. But surely this is to say too much? After all, if every action is the actualisation of a natural potentiality, and if every such actualisation is a basic good, then it follows that all actions are morally good.
Thus, we can never be said to act in a morally impermissible manner. Lee argues that there are two ways in which to actualise a potentiality. One of these is morally acceptable the other is not. The first way is to act so that each good respects and honours the basic goods that are not actualised in that particular act.
The second is to act so that one good is honoured at the expense of the others. The first way is morally acceptable, the second is not. This then is how Lee thinks our nature can begin to provide us with moral guidance. From Practical Oughts to Moral Oughts Although the actualisation of potentialities is a first approximation of how our natures provide us with moral guidance, it is not the whole story.Ethics is supposed to provide us with "moral principles" or universal rules that tell us what to do.
Many people, for example, read passionate adherents of the moral principle of utilitarianism: "Everyone is obligated to do whatever will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.". The difference between moral and intellectual virtues. Neither are they moral virtues; As to universal principles of action, man is rightly disposed by the natural understanding of principles, whereby he understands that he should .
There is certainly a connection between morality (or morals) and ethics; dictionary definitions of one will usually reference the other..
However, an important distinction needs to be considered in the debate about morals and ethics: The basis for ethics must be morals, not the other way around.
Unless there is a strong and consistent moral . This consideration particularly applies to the relationship between the theological and moral virtues. Faith, hope and charity constitute the head of the Christian organism of the virtues and impart life from within, like a vital impulse, to the human virtues so that they can be ordered to divine happiness, but not without transforming them to.
Moral Leadership 1 Moral Leadership Tracey Marshall Canada Christian College Advanced Dynamics in Leadership Dr. Clarence Duff April 12, Moral Leadership 2 The distinction between right and wrong concerning principles is called morality. It is morality which helps to govern people whether as an individual, in a family, community, or.
Sep 20, · ethics describes a generally accepted set of moral principles morals describes the goodness or badness or right or wrong of actions values describes individual or personal standards of what is valuable or important.