TRADITIONAL THEORY By : 1 st GROUP IMAN RAFIYAL PUTRA (0611310011) CUT NORA USRINA (0611310045) VERAYANTI (0611310038) FANNI AZIA ROSSA (0611310055)

TRADITIONAL THEORY

By : 1st GROUPIMAN RAFIYAL PUTRA (0611310011)

CUT NORA USRINA (0611310045)VERAYANTI (0611310038)

FANNI AZIA ROSSA (0611310055)

GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORAL

Immanuel Kant

Kant begins the first section by distinguishing between things that are “good without qualification” or “unconditionally good” and things that are good, but only qualifiedly under certain conditions.

The one thing that is good without qualification, according to Kant, is (what he calls) a good will. A good will is the only thing we can even imagine is good without qualification.

If a good will is unconditionally good than its value, Kant point out, cannot depend upon its having good effects. For if its value did depend on its having good effect it would be valuable only on the condition that it has those effects.

If moral concepts “have their seat and origin completely a priori in reason,” though, they must be understandable wholly without appeal to aspects of the human condition that can be known only from experience. No doubt moral concepts can be applied to people and the situations they face only in light of specific information experiences provides, but the concepts themselves must be comprehensible independent of knowledge provided by experience.

The distinctive and defining features of rational being, according to Kant, is their capacity to act as they do because of their “conception of laws” their capacity not merely to be pushed around by forces but to act as they thing the should (a capacity hat involves being governed by their representation of some opinion as good or required). In a perfectly rational being, the representation of something as good or required it by itself, and without resistance, sufficient for action.

Kant next offers some important observations concerning what could not serve as the source of foundation of morals. In particular, he argues, morality cannot legitimately be grounded merely in human nature, even as it applies to humans and applies in a way that is sensitive to our nature.

THE JUTIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTSDenis G. Arnold

Human rights are rights enjoyed by human not because we are members of the species Homo Sapiens, but because fully functional member of our species are persons. Personhood is a metaphysical category that may or may not e unique to Homo Sapiens. To be a person one must be capable of reflecting on one’s desires at a second-order level, and one must be capable of acting in a manner consistent with one’s considered preferences. (Dworkin, 1998;Frankfurt, 1988).

Gerwirth provides a rigorous and detailed justification of human rights. As with any major philosophical theory, Gerwirth’s defense of human rights has been criticized on various grounds.

Deryck Beyleveld has provides a masterful and persuasive defense of Gerwirth’s argument concerning the justification of human rights in his own important work in the subject. It is sometime argued that human rights can not be justified without appealing to the specific religious or legal traditions.

Human rights are moral right that apply to all persons in all nations, regardless of whether the nation in which a person resides acknowledges and protect those right. It is in this sense that human right are said to be inalienable. Human right differ from legal rights in that, unlike legal rights, the existence of human rights is not contingent upon any institutions. Some nation ensure that the rights of citizens are protected by effective policing and a independent judiciary.

ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN JUSTICE AND UTILITY

The idea of justice suppose two things: a rule of conduct a sentiment which sanctions the rule.

It appears from what has been said that justice is a name for certain moral requirements which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others, though particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice.

SOME PROBLEMS OF UTILITARIANISM

Two features of utilitarian theory require clarification at the outset:

First, it is a theory of both personal morality and social justice. A good man is one who strives to maximize the sum total of happiness (his own plus others), and the good society is one the seeks to maximize that sum total.

Second, the maximand, as most utilitarians view it, is not a particular psychological state—ecstasy or euphoria or whatever—but is the broadest possible concept of satisfaction

ARISTOTELIAN ETHIC

Aristotle makes some important preliminary about the study of ethic:

First, ethical inquiry is not the kind of investigation in which the primary objective is abstract knowledge of the good, the aim is to become a good person or develop a moral character

A second claim Aristotle makes early on lends a degree of irony or paradox to the study of ethics

Aristotle is something of pragmatist of realist in two respects:

He does not regard knowledge as separate from action.

“Te good” is something that can only be roughly or provisionally given.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

The two principles of justice are: Each person engaged in an institutions or affected

by it has equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.

Inequalities as defined by the institutional structure or fostered by it are arbitrary unless it is reasonable to expect that they will work out to everyone’s advantage and provide that the positions and office to which they attach or from which they may be gained are open to all.

ENTITLEMENT THEORY

Entitlement Theory is a theory of private property created by Robert Nozick. Nozick’s theory is basically ethic according to contract rights. The theory is Nozick’s attempt to describe “justice in holding” or what can be said about and done with the property people own when viewed from a principle of justice

The subject of justice in holdings consists of three major topics.

A principle of justice in acquisition – This principle deals with the initial acquisition of holdings.

A principle of justice in transfer – This principle explain how one person can acquire holdings from another, including voluntary exchange and gifts.

A principle of rectification of injustice – How to deal with holdings that are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and how much victims can be compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices done by a government, and so on.

The following inductive definition would exhaustively cover the subject of justice in holdings:

A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.

A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding.

No one is entitled to a holding expect by (repeated) application of 1 and 2.

FUNDAMENTAL INTERNATIONAL RIGHT

Donaldson defines a fundamental international right as satisfying three conditions:

The right must be protect something of great importance

The right must be subject to substantial and recurrent threats

The duties associated with the right must be limited in light of fairness and affordability

The following list contains items that appear to satisfy the three conditions and hence to qualify as fundamental international right:

The right to freedom of physical movement The right to ownership property The right to freedom from torture The right to a fair trial The right to nondiscriminatory treatment The right to physical security The right to freedom of speech and association The right to minimal education The right to political participation The right to subsistence.

MODEL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES

Provision of a safe and healthy workplace Fair employment practices Responsible environmental protection and

environmental practices Compliance with U.S. and local laws promoting

good business practices Maintenance, through leadership at all levels

MODEL BUSINESS PRINSIPLES: Procedure

Voluntary Statement of Business Principles Efforts by U.S. Business Efforts by the U.S. Government also will

undertake a number of activities to generate support for the Model Business Principles

SECTION 1. PREAMBLE SECTION 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Principle 1. The Responsibilities of Businesses: Beyond Shareholders Toward Stakeholders

Principle 2. The Economic and Social Impact of Businesses: Toward Innovation, Justice and World Community

Principle 3. Business Behavior: Beyond the Letter Of the law Toward a Spirit of Trust

Principle 4. Respect for the rulesPrinciple 5. Support for Multilateral TradePrinciple 6. Respect for the Environment Principle 7. Avoidance of Illicit Operations

SECTION 3. STAKEHOLDER PRINCIPLES

Customers Employees Owners/Investors Suppliers Competitors Communities

INTERNATIONAL ETHICS STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS

NAFTA Caux Principles