1. Philosophy of Moral
Gigay Citta A.
Ginan Aulia R.
Labib Wildan
Rokhim Faudzami
Syahrir Alkindi

2. I. What is it concerned with?
What
should/ought
we do?
What is right
and wrong ?
On what basis
we can choose
different
courses of
action?
How do we live
a good life?

3. ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’
• Facts say what ‘is’.
• Values say what ‘ought’ to be.
• Can we ever derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ ?
If there is NO facts can be used to establish morality,
OR
Can there be
absolute moral
rules ?
All moral decisions
relative, dependent
upon circumstances,
feelings, or desires?

4. On Right and Wrong

5. Objections on Religious Motive
1.
• Those who don’t believe in God still make judgements and
think no one should kill another for his wallet and can get
away with it.
2.
• Murder is wrong in itself, that’s why God forbids it.
3.
• If you think it is wrong to kill, you should want to avoid it
because it is a bad thing to do to the victim, not just
about consequences of yourself or because you don’t
want to offend your Creator.

6. Another objection…
Why ‘for our own comfort’ reason is not
in line with the attempt of morality to
appeal to a concern for others?

7. II. The Division of Moral Philosophy
Meta-ethics
Normative
ethics
Applied
ethics

8. Q : What is Meta-Ethics talking about?
A : it’s about the general nature of morality
Moral
Realist Believes that moral
Believes that moral
judgments express
truth.
Cognitivists add these
truths can be known.
judgements do not
have this objective
existence.
Non-Cognitivists, such
as Emotivism, holds
that moral judgments
are no more than
expression of an
opinion.
Non -
Realist

9. A more sophisticated Non-Cognitivist position :
Moral
judgments as
prescribing
courses of
action
Moral
judgments
are not
descriptive
Prescripti
- vism
Prescriptivism

10. Ethical Theories
Deontological
• Acts are right
or wrong
depending on
the nature of
the act itself,
not the
consequences
Consequentialist
• Things are only
wrong if they
cause harm.
• Things are right
if they make
other things
better
Virtue-based
• Morality has its
basis in the
character of
the moral agent
• It stresses
that being good
is a matter of
character which
is developed.

11. Q : If Meta-ethics is about general nature of morality,
what about Normative ethics?
A : It’s about the actual moral codes
Utilitarianism
• It’s normative consequentialist ethic.
• It holds that acts are right that if they increase utility or can be understood as happiness.
Kantian ethics
• It’s deontological ethic.
• It holds that we should only follow moral rules which consistently will to hold as
universal rules. Not out of any other motive or just habit.
Aristotelian ethics
• It’s a virtue ethic.
• It holds that the good person develops virtues which lie at a mid-point or ‘mean’ or
average between two extremes. e.g. Generosity ( dermawan) is the mean between
meanness (pelit) and profligacy (buang – buang uang)

12. Q : Applied ethics? What is it about?
A: It’s about considering real ethical dilemmas and
applying ethical principles to them.

13. Conclusion
Thus, We are inclined to say that we are adhere to the
Utilitarianism as this system of thought are quite
principal, universal, and ideal.
As of being principal as it is meant to be ‘clear’ and
fundamentally ( able to be applied to all sorts of human
act) : The act would be measured as of being ‘Right’ if
the act itself is in the use to portray something that is
‘pushing to the ‘Goodness’’; and vice versa, if it is
meant to be such a form development to the human
decadency.

14. As of being universal as it is quite naturally, we as
human beings are the representations of morally
subject, whoever kind of people we are, regardless
what kind of place, time, WE the human beings are
always in great demand of good future, happiness,
and in the inevitable act to hinder the agony.
And as of being ideal as it DOES deliver such a very
eligible point of pursue, and is limitless in its
progress. Hence, the ideally aim in Utilitarianism,
the trigger point of changing to be the ‘better one’
would always in offer.

15. Source
• All images from Google Images.
• Thompson, Mel. (2003). Teach Yourself :
Philosophy. London: Hodder Headline Ltd.
• Baggini, Julian. (2002). Philosophy: Key Themes.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan
• Nagel, Thomas. (1987). What Does It All Mean: A
very Short Introduction to Philosophy. New York:
Oxford University Press