Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now: Descriptive, Normative and Analytic Ethics: Examples

Agnosticism / Atheism: What's Hot Now These articles that had the largest increase in popularity over the last week // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Descriptive, Normative and Analytic Ethics: Examples Jan 11th 2012, 11:07 Ethics: Descriptive, Normative and Analytic Examples Exploring: Philosophy > Ethics & Morality • Ethics & Morality • Intro to Ethics & Morality • How to Think About Ethics • Normative Ethical Systems • Ethical Dilemmas & Problems • Philosophy • Introduction to Philosophy • Biographies of Philosophers • Schools of Philosophy • Branches of Philosophy --> • Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews --> • Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat! • Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum! Here are a couple of examples which should help make the difference between descriptive, normative and analytic ethics even more clear. 1. Descriptive: Different societies have different moral standards. 2. Normative: This action is wrong in this society, but it is right in another. 3. Analytic: Morality is relative. All of these statements are about ethical relativism, the idea that moral standards different from person to person or from society to society. In descriptive ethics, it is simply observed that different societies have different standards - this is a true and factual statement which offers no judgments or conclusions. In normative ethics, a conclusion is drawn from the observation made above, namely that some action is wrong in one society and is right in another. This is a normative claim because it goes beyond simply observing that this action is treated as wrong in one place and treated as right in another. In analytic ethics, an even broader conclusion is drawn from the above, namely that the very nature of morality is that it is relative. This position argues that there are no moral standards independent of our social groups, and hence whatever a social group decides is right is right and whatever it decides is wrong is wrong - there is nothing "above" the group to which we can appeal in order to challenge those standards. 1. Descriptive: People tend to make decisions which bring pleasure or avoid pain. 2. Normative: The moral decision is that which enhances well-being and limits suffering. 3. Analytic: Morality is simply a system for helping humans stay happy and alive. All of these statements refer to the moral philosophy commonly known as utilitarianism. The first, from descriptive ethics, simply makes the observation that when it comes to making moral choices, people have a tendency to go with whatever option makes them feel better or, at the very least, they avoid whichever option causes them problems or pain. This observation may or may not be true, but it does not attempt to derive any conclusions as to how people should behave. The second statement, from normative ethics, does attempt to derive a normative conclusion - namely, that the most moral choices are those which tend to enhance our well-being, or at the very least limit our pain and suffering. This is represents an attempt to create a moral standard, and as such, must be treated differently form the observation made previously. The third statement, from analytic ethics, draws yet a further conclusion based upon the previous two, this one about the very nature of morality itself. Instead of arguing, as in the previous example, that morals are all relative, this one makes a claim about the purpose of morals - namely, that moral exist simply to keep us happy and alive. -->

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions