MORAL PLURALISM
Timmons notes on pluralism
Mark Timmons’s sentiments found in “Moral Theory” form some essential ethical tenets. It is apparent, systematic, erudite, organized, non-superficial and fair. I, therefore, recommend it for use in ethical theories. I can also support its use by teachers and graduate students of philosophy. The moral argument by Timmons covers theories such as relativism, utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics and particularism. I like the organization of the book. Starting with relativism or moral pluralism, Timmons points out that values can conflict along with one resolution, the doctrine of double effect. Timmons opines the best moral theory is pluralistic. Moral pluralism is the notion that there can be conflicting moral views that are worthy of respect or attention. Moral values should be analyzed in from several points of view before deciding for a course of action. Timmons pointed out that no single philosophical approach can provide all the answers. Timmons thus encourages moral pluralism in making ethical decisions (Graham et al., 2016).
Definitions
Moral monism
This is the ability to make moral decisions using one valid ethical theory. It is a philosophy of morality that asserts a single framework for morality that applies to all individuals in all places and at all times regardless of their culture, religion, gender. It states that moral actions are objectively true regardless of whether or not anyone correctly recognizes it. It can be contrasted to moral pluralism which allows moral values to be analyzed from several points of view (Graham et al., 2016).
Prima facie duty
This is a duty that is binding or obligatory other things being equal. A prima facie duty is a right that can be outweighed or overridden by other considerations. They are the rights that we are granted as long as we don’t do anything to get them taken away. For example the duty to help needy people, duty to tell the truth or the duty not to harm other people.
Actual duty
Actual duty is the one that we should perform in the specific situation of choice.
Fidelity
This is an ethical principle which is the duty to fulfill promises and agreements to which one has entered. It is the loyalty to accomplish explicitly and implicitly all commitments.
Reparation
This is a prima facie duty that involves the obligation to make up for (compensate) for wrongful acts previously done to others. In other words, it is the duty to compensate for any harm or wrong done to others previously.
Gratitude
This is the duty to repay others for past favors done for oneself. It is the duty to show thankfulness and appreciation for being done well by others in the past. This duty stems from the previous action by others (Smith, 1973).
Justice
It is the duty that requires every individual to be treated equally. This duty stems from the possibility of a mismatch between an individual’s pleasure and their merit. This duty provides that such a mismatch should be prevented or corrected (Rohwer and Marris, 2015).
Beneficence
This principle or duty means doing good for others (Smith, 1973). It requires individuals to improve the conditions of others concerning pleasure, intelligence or virtue. This principle requires nurses to assist patients in meeting all their needs-biological, psychological and social.
Self-improvement
This is the duty to improve one’s condition concerning virtue or intelligence.
Non-maleficence
This duty requires that no harm be caused to an individual whether unintentionally or deliberately. It is the duty not to harm or injure others (Smith, 1973).
Moral judgment
This duty requires that individuals should make decisions after weighing both sides of wrong and right. It is the judgment of value that evaluates the rightness or wrongness of our actions. The actions of a rational person involving choice and resolutions have a moral quality of rightness or wrongness based on the moral standard. Moral judgment defines what is wrong, right, bad, good, ethical or unethical based on the moral standard (Rohwer and Marris, 2015).
Principles of Right action
Obligatory: right actions are either obligatory or optional. According to (Sachs, 2017), obligatory rights are those whose omission is optimal to blame.
Forbidden: acts of self-sacrifice performed for the sake of the good of others but which result in a greater balance of harm over good than alternative actions would produce are generally regarded as heroic but are forbidden as wrong by the utilitarian (Sachs, 2017).
Explain why Moral Pluralism is a deontological theory
Moral pluralism is a deontological theory because it primarily focuses on whether ethical actions per se are right or wrong regardless of the outcomes or consequences of those ethical decisions. Moral pluralism is non-consequentialist hence deontological. It emphasizes action or choice rather than being concerned with the consequences or results of those actions. The morality of an action in moral pluralism is thus based on whether the act itself is right or wrong rather than basing it on the consequences of the action. Moral pluralism states that moral values should be analyzed in from several points of view before deciding for a course of action. After the moral values have been examined, the action to be taken is right or wrong regardless of the consequences it brings (Graham et al., 2016). The theory states that there can be conflicting moral views that are worth paying attention to. Such values or actions/decisions when analyzed are ethical or irrespective of the consequences or outcomes that they bring or lead to. Their results or consequences do not justify the actions and decisions.
References
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2016). Moral Foundations Theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism.
Rohwer, Y., & Marris, E. (2015). Is there a prima facie duty to preserve genetic integrity in conservation biology?. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 18(3), 233-247.
Sachs, B. (2017). Explaining Right and Wrong: A New Moral Pluralism and Its Implications. Routledge.
Smith, M. B. E. (1973). Is there a prima facie obligation to obey the law?. The Yale Law Journal, 82(5), 950-976.