Shafer-Landau's Argument Analysis

573 Words3 Pages

Developing from the reasoning of (Russ Shafer-Landau, p.p 13), it is clear that there is a difference between normative ethics and metaethics. Normative ethics are those values that develop from within a personality and are always employed whenever ethics are breached. On the other hand the metaethics is basically the diverse elements that are considered crucial for building positive ethical believes. (Shafer-Landau, p.p 29), also brings forward other moral ethical elements such as the moral error theory, the desire-satisfaction theory, ethical particularism and the doctrine of double effects. All the above elements are crucial for shaping ones ethical perspectives and inclinations leave alone resolving ethical issues within a society. Shafer-Landau is also keen on applying the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative and the Greatest Happiness Principle in resolving issues jeopardizing conflicts as explained by (Shafer-Landau, p.p 56-57) …show more content…

First, Nadya should determine the source of aggression exemplified by Stephan towards Xavi. From this point, it will be crucial to apply the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, (Shafer-Landau, p.p 11).This later ideology is aimed at mediating between two conflicting parties ties by varying ethical level toward ones another. Nadzeya should in such a case place the two ethically conflicting parties. Using the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, it is possible to attain a humanistic level where different categories of imperatives can be made a doctrine into ones thinking hence finding a level ground for agreement between the two conflicting