Morals are the social, cultural and religious beliefs or values of an individual or group which tells us what is right or wrong. They are the rules and standards made by the society or culture which is to be followed by us while deciding what is right.
I think we should be concerned with ethics since they are generally more difficult, abstract and uniform over different societies.Ethics work as a guiding principle as to decide what is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person. Ethics is also known as moral philosophy. Some ethical principles are
.. Morals has unimaginable combinations of truths
Neither, Neither are duties, and each is based in a profound and disturbing lack of basic understanding of what justice is about, in the US and probably most western countries. And it can stand as a caution and warning against "moralizing" from ignorance.Which duty is more important? — Wittgenstein
What do you consider as duties ?
Well can you illuminate us about justice in the context of case 1 ? — Wittgenstein
Well you are pretty close to kantian except Kant wants an individual to prioritize and perform his duties considering the hypothesis if everyone was to do the same.Well in your case, you are in fact making a moral choice when you consider yourself to be just performing a job.: I accept that there are things I ought/ought not to do. I try to understand what those things are and why they are. And then I try to live and act in accord(ance) with those things.
Well this isn't the first time l have asked this question, maybe in other variant forms.A lot of the people were concerned and would refrain from performing the job in such sensitive cases. Despite calling the question nonsensical, you have answered it, or even taken a certain stance, i.e you have given priority over the duty of a lawyer, which you didn't argue for.I actually did argue for it and l would favour your point of view but you cannot term the question as nonsense.You can call it stupid but seriously this is the attitude of the general public towards philosophy.If you ever ask someone at random in the street, "Is killing wrong ?", they wouldn't take you seriously.In your first example, it's all about justice, not this malefactor or that lawyer. The defense lawyer owes to justice the best defense he can provide. That's his duty and his job. Analogously it's a surgeon's business and duty to slice his patients open. Or a mechanic's to take your car apart.
I would not consider them moral stances, but if someone else wants to, they can but they need to show how a moral stance is not duty oriented.So there are moral stances that someone couldn't interpret as duty-oriented if they wanted to?
Well can l go a little further and say that many laws in the world, particularly those relating to sentencing spies involved in espionage to death are immoral despite the general consensus. Let's suppose l take all the countries that approve death penalty for murderers and they rely on consensus in the society, can l call it immoral.just because they think that or just because there's a consensus about it.
Well you are pretty close to kantian except Kant wants an individual to prioritize and perform his duties considering the hypothesis if everyone was to do the same.Well in your case, you are in fact making a moral choice when you consider yourself to be just performing a job. — Wittgenstein
Well just because there is a consensus in the community regarding it, does not follow that there is no moral obligation on an individual.Can you say the same on the nazi leaders who used the exact same arguement in the international court, that "we were following orders " .It is not related to this case but you can see the community's understanding failings.Most people do not have to make such decisions and I don't think every lawyer would be willing to defend a ted bundy or a war criminal.The community isn't only the government, it is the people too,He has always already studied, learned, and accepted his community's understanding of justice and how it works.
I am considering the unusual cases.But we are not talking about leaving a duty but favouring one over anotherPerhaps this: we all have desires. Duty is apart from desires. You may even have a desire to not perform as duty requires. But it turns out that, usually, duty provides the greater reward - unless you're a member of the SS
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.