Full Moral Rights example essay topic

Right Theory: 1. Rights create obligations, type of moral discourse & involve agents, being who act & are acted upon. People are given obligations to respect your rights. There is no right to obligate other people rights. (Conventional rights: Created by group of people as law or regulation in our society. Ex: right to vote, to purchase weapon; Moral rights: Discovered from generation to generation, these are universal rights & they exist because of the nature of things) 2.

Bi level approach to moral rights: Upper level: Desire free & rational, get full moral rights; Lower level: All other agents get dimensional rights base on, for ex, vulnerability to pain & death or conventional rights. Strength: Free & rational; Weakness: Give up universal rights. 3. Potentiality approach to moral rights: The beings w / the potentiality to become free & rational deserve moral rights. Weakness: It has not been yet to come, just the expectation. The child does not have a full moral right as adult; Strength: Satisfaction for other people, one die to save many others is acceptable.

Kantian Ethics: 1. The good will is always good: because of not the consequences associate with it, it is good in itself. 2. Only the only motivate w / moral value is one directed by a rational respect for duty: Duty is the soul of morality & soul of motivation. If your motivations are selfish or determined by feeling &/or sentiments, they have no moral worth. 3.

Two from of the categorical imperative: Act only according to that maximize a motivation by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law; Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end & never as a means only. Hypothetical imperative: If I want it then I must do it self consider, selfish. Utilitarianism: 1. Maximize rationality provide utilitarianism w / considerable power & appeal: Seek to maximize intrinsic good, utilitarianism gains its power from maximizing rationality.

Utilitarianism has proposed 3 intrinsic valuable entities: pleasure, happiness & goodness. The right action maximizes pleasure, minimizes pain that counts one's pleasure no more or less than any one else. 2. Utilitarianism can't assert that torturing an innocent child is always immoral because sometimes decision is made base on: fully characterize the problem, consider our options, choose the option that minimize pain or maximize pleasure and consequences are what have value. Since, if torture an innocent child is the only option that we have, then we have no other choice. 3.

Utilitarianism separates proper motivation from right action means that: pleasure & happiness are not always intrinsically valuable, so we not to maximize them. As pleasure and happiness of torturing should not be maximize. Ethics of caring: 1. Natural caring: are the feelings of universal morality. Ethics caring: is created by natural caring, accepts & sustains natural caring. Ethics caring dependent upon the natural caring because natural caring is universal and ethics caring is inside of it.

2. We are not obligated to care for starving children who fall outside our "inner circle" in an ethics of caring because we have to feed the inside our "inner circle" first, our "inner circles" adequately as "ones-caring" or "caring one" and receiving the other calls on our obligations will be limited quite naturally. And not obligated to care for others when completing such caring could require abandoning the inner circle.