Moral Legal and Aesthetic Reasoning

  • Beitrags-Autor:
  • Beitrags-Kategorie:Allgemein

Judgments about beauty and art, such as moral and legal reasoning, are based on conceptual frameworks that incorporate facts and values. A judgment on art is made when an appeal to aesthetic reason is made to defend or critique value statements, using one or more of the eight value principles. First, objects have aesthetic value when they have meaning or teach something true. This framework identifies a value in art that fulfills a cultural or social function by teaching that non-art cannot provide. Second, objects have aesthetic value if they express the values of the culture in which they are created or of the artists who created them; This distinguishes the value of art that fulfills cultural or social functions. Third, objects have aesthetic value if they can lead to social change. He perceives value with the ability of art to fulfill cultural or social functions. Social change is an improvement, although it is not universally recognized at first. Fourth, objects have aesthetic value when they appeal to the pleasure of the audience – they contribute to happiness and associate value with the ability of a thing to create some kind of psychological experience. Fifth, objects have aesthetic value when they convey to the audience certain emotions that are cherished – feelings that are not trivial, but are valued to awaken people. Sixth, objects have aesthetic value when they create an extraordinary non-emotional experience that comes only from art, such as a sense of autonomy or the voluntary abandonment of disbelief. Here, aesthetic value depends on the production of a certain subjective state and, as above, is combined with a function of art. Objects have aesthetic value when they possess a unique aesthetic form such as beauty, unity or organization.

In its meaningful form, the art object is valuable to itself, not to function. After all, objects have aesthetic value due to features that cannot determine the reasons, and no argument can justify aesthetic or worthless value. This principle corresponds to moral subjectivism in the idea that an object has aesthetic value if someone values it (Moore and Parker, 473-477). Lawrence Kohlberg explains the stages of moral thought through his theory of moral development. The first stage of moral thought is pre-conventional morality. Here, reasoning is based on the punishment-obedience orientation – physical consequences are the determinant of a „good“ and „bad“ action and an instrumental relativistic orientation – „good“ and „good“ are what satisfies needs. At this point, the reasoning focuses on oneself. At the second level, there is conventional morality, which includes „good boy – nice girl“ and the orientation of law and order. It is about the image that others think and the approval of others for „good“ behavior. « Righteous behavior consists in doing one`s duty, respecting authority and maintaining the social order given for oneself. » The final stage is post-conventional morality, which includes the orientation of the social contract and the orientation of the universal ethical principle. Here, the „good“ action is determined by the common good, although the action is contrary to the predefined social order.

The decision to make the right choice is defined by the decision of conscience in accordance with self-chosen ethical principles that lead to logical completeness, universality and coherence (Kohlberg, „Theory of Moral Development“). Ethics in action HST II class. Health workers need to understand ethical and legal responsibilities, limitations and implications. As in moral and legal reasoning, when we discuss art, we invoke more than one principle or framework in a single argument, but not always. An aesthetic argument describes the characteristics of a work that are relevant and descriptively faithful to a principle. Legal reasoning, on the other hand, is prescriptive, as are moral claims: it tells us what we „should“ do. But legal regulations carry the weight of the law behind them, while moral regulations alone do not. The justification of laws – deciding what should be legal or illegal is based on legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism and the criminal offense principle. Legal moralism and the principle of harm justify a law that prohibits an idea, behaviour or action on the grounds that it is immoral and harmful to others. Legal paternalism justifies a law that imposes an idea, behaviour or action on people on the basis that it is in the good of a person, while the criminal principle justifies the prohibition of a law because it is offensive (Moore and Parker, 470).

Moral thinking is a thought process aimed at establishing a value judgment by determining whether an idea is „good,“ „wrong,“ „good,“ or „bad.“ These are reflections on the things we should do and the things we shouldn`t do. When identifying the „should“ or „should not do“ of things like an idea, behavior, or action, it`s important to know both the intentions of what needs to be achieved and the environment that exists from the decision to the execution of the decision. Therefore, moral reasoning cannot be executed properly until what is sought and the environment are fully understood. Moral arguments begin with non-moral factual assertions and end with a moral value judgment that flows from an „is“ to an illogical „should.“ This is a type of error called naturalistic fallacy. An argument can avoid naturalistic error by incorporating a general moral principle that links fact-finding to moral value judgment (Moore and Parker, 452-465). 2 Moral relativity: The idea that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by one`s group or culture. Consider the following two statements: What is right and wrong can vary from group to group, society to society, or culture to culture. What is considered right and wrong can vary from group to group, society to society or culture to culture. What is the difference between the two claims? The first allegation is indisputable and the second controversial. It may have been the majority belief in ancient Greece that there was nothing wrong with slavery, but that doesn`t mean there wasn`t anything wrong with slavery at that time. Religious relativism: The belief that what is right and wrong is what religious culture or society believes to be right.

Ask the following question: What is considered a religious culture or society and membership in such a religious culture? Are Baptists and Catholics part of the same culture? Are you a Christian even if you never go to church? Even within the same culture, there are conflicting moral views. Religious absolutism: This theory asserts that correct moral principles are those accepted by the „right“ religion. The problem here is that opinions about what good religion is vary and there doesn`t seem to be any good reason to think that one is more correct or likely to be truer than another. Ethics of virtue: does not focus on what to do, but on how you are. Scouts are a good example of virtue ethics. Scouts don`t promise not to do this or that – rather, they promise to be a certain type of person; He promises to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind, polite and kind; brave. This is a list of virtues, qualities or character; A person who has it is inclined by the habit to act in a certain way and not to act otherwise. Aristotle (BC) saw virtue as a quality such as wisdom, justice, or courage that we acquire when we use our capacity for reason to temper our impulses and desires. He said that virtue is a matter of habit, quality or lifestyle. 1 Moral, legal and aesthetic reasoningA value judgment evaluates the merit, desirability, or praise of someone or something. Moral thinking differs from other types of reasoning because it consists primarily of making moral value judgments. Moral value judgments use words like good, bad, good, bad should, should, just, just right.

A moral principle is a value judgment of a general nature. It refers to what should be done not only in individual cases, but in all cases. One example is consequentialism „stealing is wrong“: the view that the consequences of a decision or policy determine its moral value. If an action has better consequences than the alternatives, then morally it is the best action. Utilitarianism says that if one action produces more happiness than the alternative, then it is the right thing to do. Kant theorized about „theory of duty“ or deontologism – and said that our lives are full of imperatives based on our own situations and goals. If we want to get ahead at work, we have to keep our promises. For an action to be morally commendable, it does not need to be done for a purpose, but simply because it is right. A value judgment is a term for a statement in which a judgment occurs. A value judgment evaluates the value or opportunity of something or someone. One example is a teacher who says about a student who committed fraud: „He deserves a 3 for this essay.“ The teacher does not describe the student, but expresses an opinion about the student.

Moral argument is used to try to make moral value judgments. Not all value judgments express a moral value judgment. When it says, „Our Queen dresses beautifully,“ it is a value judgment, but not a moral one. A moral value judgment often includes words like „good,“ „false,“ and „bad.“ .