Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Moral philosophy: Moral psychology is a field of study that began, like most things, as an issue in philosophy and that

is now
properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[24] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (andphilosophy of mind).[25] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character(especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological

Moral philosophy is the area of philosophy concerned with theories of ethics, with how we ought to live our lives. It is divided into three areas: metaethics, normative ethics, andapplied ethics.
egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.

Metaethics Metaethics is the most abstract area of moral philosophy. It deals with questions about the nature of morality, about what morality is and what moral language means. This section of the site contains material on cognitivism andnoncognitivism, and on moral relativism. Normative Ethics While metaethics treats the most abstract questions of moral philosophy, normative ethics is more concerned with providing a moral framework that can be used in order to work out what kinds of action are good and bad, right and wrong. There are three main traditions in normative ethics:virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. Applied Ethics The most down to earth area of moral philosophy is applied ethics. This seeks to apply normative ethical theories to specific cases to tell us what is right and what is wrong. In this section, various thorny ethical issues are discussed: e.g. abortion, animal rights, and punishment.

Deontology: Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek , deon, "obligation, duty"; and -, -logia) is an approach to ethics that
determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the intentionsof the person doing the act, as it adheres to rules and duties.[11] This is contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,[12] if it follows the rule that one should do unto others as they would have done unto them,[11] and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act[citation needed]. According to deontology, we have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of our actions are not important in and of themselves, and our intentions are not important in and of themselves.

Teleology: A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The word comes from the Greek , telos; root: -,

"end, purpose (not to be confused with , at a distance, far from). The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals. Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm around 1000 AD, and later by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel. A thing, process or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]

A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. For example, Aristotle argued that animals are for the sake of man, a thing external to them.[2]Humans also exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek something external to themselves (e.g., the happiness of a child). If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.

A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something not external to itself. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.

relativist perspective: concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to
differences in perception and consideration.[1][2] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[3] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and contentious form is moral relativism. (See also moral relativism, aesthetic relativism, social constructionism, and cognitive relativism). Relativism is sometimes (though not always) interpreted as saying that all points of view are equally valid, in contrast to an absolutism which argues there is but one true and correct view. In fact, relativism asserts that a particular instance Y exists only in combination with or as a byproduct of a particular framework or viewpoint X, and that no framework or standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. That is, a nonuniversal trait Y (e.g., a particular practice, behavior, custom, convention, concept, belief, perception, ethics, truth, or conceptual framework) is a dependent variable influenced by the independent variable X (e.g., a particular language, culture, historical epoch, a priori cognitive architecture, scientific frameworks, gender, ethnicity, status, individuality). Notably, this is not an argument that all instances of a certain kind of framework (say, all languages) do not share certain basic universal commonalities (say, grammatical structure and vocabulary) that essentially define that kind of framework and distinguish it from other frameworks (for example, linguists have criteria that define language and distinguish it from the mere communication of other animals).

Virtue thics: Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules
(deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics). The difference between these four approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as

personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent). In contrast, an ethical pragmatist would judge the morality of the lie based not upon properties of the individual moral agent, but upon those of their society. The lie would be deemed immoral on the grounds that their society currently deems it immoral for various reasons (which may include the application of virtue ethics, consequentialism and/or deontology, as well as other reasons yet to be explicated), and that society is progressing morally, much as it progresses scientific knowledge (potentially over many lifetimes).

Cognitive: Cognition is the scientific term for mental processes. These processes include Attention, remembering, producing and
understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions. Cognition is studied in various disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. Usage of the term varies in different disciplines; for example in psychology and cognitive science, it usually refers to an information processing view of an individual's psychological functions. It is also used in a branch of social psychology called social cognition to explain attitudes, attribution and groups dynamics. The term cognition (Latin: cognoscere, "to know", "to conceptualize" or "to recognize") refers to a faculty for the processing of information, applying knowledge, and changing preferences. Cognition, or cognitive processes, can be natural or artificial, conscious or unconscious. These processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields of linguistics,anesthesia, neurology and psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, systemics, computer science and creed. Within psychology or philosophy, the concept of cognition is closely related to abstract concepts such as mind, intelligence, cognition is used to refer to the mental functions, mental processes (thoughts) and states of intelligent entities (humans, human organizations, highly autonomous machines and artificial intelligences).

justice and fairness: is the political philosopher John Rawls' conception of justice. It comprises two main principles of Liberty and
Equality; the second is subdivided into Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. Rawls arranges the principles in 'lexical priority', prioritising in the order of the Liberty Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. This order determines the priorities of the principles if they conflict in practice. The principles are, however, intended as a single, comprehensive conception of justice - 'Justice as Fairness' - and not to function individually.

Theory of care: The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory; that is, a theory about what makes actions right or wrong. It is one of a
cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of relationships. The basic beliefs of the theory are:

1. 2.

All individuals are interdependent for achieving their interests Those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to 1. the level of their vulnerability to one's choices 2. the level of their affectedness by one's choices and no one else's