Introduction
Moral principles are the fundamental societal norms that are universally accepted by the society.
Ethics are also called moral principles. Moral philosophy discussed what is morally wrong and what is right or what is right and what is wrong. The term morality and ethics are closely related. Moral, ethical values play an essential role in our daily life. Ethics is considered as a branch of philosophy, but it has links with other studying areas such as biology, history, sociology, anthropology, theology, and politics. But ethics remain distinct from these studying disciplines.
Origin of morality
There is a different view about the source some scholars argue that morality is divine some scholars say that morality is a link with human civilization and some of the thoughts say that morality is closely linked with the institution (Cushman and Fiery, 2008).
There is an ancient history of the origin of ethics and morality. The history of morality starts from the Babylonian column with showing that first time presenting the code of moral principles in 1750 BCE (Cushman and Fiery, 2008). The oldest record of ethics and morality that traced back from Babylonian.
There are four basic fundamental moral principles of ethics.
The principle of Respect for autonomy
The word autonomy is derived from Latin word used for self-rule. It is the fundamental norms that we give respect to another person in the society; it is the dignity of humanity. It is considered harmful that you interfere in the decision making the process of other who are adult and have competent to make a decision.
The principle of beneficence
It is our social responsibility, and it is moral, ethical values that we behave friendly and our actions are good for the society the first, and foremost importance is that we cannot hurt with our action to the community. Moral principles for the well-being of the nation.
The principle of no maleficence
First of all, it is stated that we have no right to hurt other no one hurt from you if in the case where the situation is uncontrolled we try to minimize the harm full actions. Don’t increase the risk of harm always try to reduce them. It is not right that you waste your sources that use for the wellbeing.
The moral principle of justice
It is our moral obligation that we give the right of every individual that he deserved. It is our moral obligation that we treat equally and unfairly in our public life. We work for the benefit of the society give benefits without any discrimination.
The moral principle of cultures
Moral principles of cultures differ from culture to culture in one culture the act of human being is considered bad but there may be that action cannot consider bad in other society, but there are some universal cultural, moral principles that consider wrong around them in all cultures. Rubbery consider bad in all cultural values. The cultural values norms that are it is the moral obligation of every individual that follow this moral obligation. Cultural norms and obligation for the goodness of the society it is the moral duty that we fallow that norms and principles.
The moral principle of religion
There is a very close relationship between morality and religion. There is some moral principles framework that set the faith regarding the personal behavior of the individual to determining what is right and what is wrong. All the religion have some basic moral principles either Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Sikhism (Lovejoy and Arthur, 2017). These ethical principles are interpreted by various sources such as holy books Quran or Bible and also in oral form and the speaking of the holy prophets and by their religious leaders. Most of these share principles based on the equality and freedom of thought.
Morality and religion are not synonyms; there is a relationship between these two, but morality does not depend upon belief (Lovejoy and Arthur, 2017). Conceptually the principles morality and the religious value system are two different ways action guidelines.
Kant and Hume on Morality
There is a very close relationship between David Hume (1711 to 1776) and Immanuel Kant (1724 to 1804) these two are the most critical contribution to the modern philosophy. Hume and Kant are with two different conceptions of the morality. These different conceptions of morality help us to explain the two different approaches regarding the moral philosophe (Guyer and Paul, 2014). The most important differences between the Immanuel Kant that see duty, obligation and law are the core of the morality, while on the other hand David Hume does not like this.
Immanuel Kant this concept of morality Bernard Williams call “the moral system,” that system defines the domain of morality regarding an inescapable and an unconditional form of obligation. Immanuel that believes that the question highly dominates our moral concerns that what duties and responsibility are the imposed on us by the law that commands are our moral necessity (Guyer and Paul, 2014). Like other philosophers of the eighteenth century, they also believe that our moral values are closely linked with the question of how to be virtue of the course of life, but that scholars define morality as the basic fundamental concepts of duty, obligation, and law.
On the other hand contrast with Immanuel Kant, David Hume also consider these into morality, but they are not more focus on these they are less central as compare to Kant. David argues that personal merit lies in the heart of morality(Guyer and Paul, 2014). Our moral concerns more dominated by which motives are a virtue, and we respond to the question to the looking of fellow humans. David Hume more emphasis on the role or response of the society in the morality rather the law.
Immanuel Kant draws a dark line between nonmoral and moral phenomenon. Morality the nature of its demand and its normative standard distinguish norms from non-moral. On the other hand, the David line between morality and non-morality is quite blurred that cannot sharply identify each other (Guyer and Paul, 2014). David assimilates moral judgment about beauty and deformity.
Another essential difference between these two scholars is related to the first one. Immanuel Kant morality is profoundly different from the non-morality not only by the specialty form of obligation but also by the evaluation. Morality has itself a unique and distinguished. The most important moral concern is to protect our distinguish status between moral and non-moral. Immanuel believes that moral domain is the only way that separates us from the machine (Kleingeld and Pauline, 2018). They work better as compared to human but due to lack of the element of morality. To protect morality is one of our chief concerns if we cannot preserve this status of morality it is very dishonored for us.
Immanuel Kant and David Hume, both philosopher, believes that morality has its bases and it cannot be discussed according to philosophical thoughts. When both Hume and Kant addressed the foundation of morality, they agree on two points. First, both the scholars agree that the basis or foundation of morality does not exist in the religion and secondly, both agree that virtue cannot be found in mind set of independent. Without these two points, they disagree with each other (Guyer and Paul, 2014). David Hume argues that morality foundation located like a human being, primarily in our emotional response towards other humans. In contrast with David, Immanuel argues that morality is situated on the foundation rational nature of human being. Kant further argues that the moral basis lies in the autonomy of the rational will.
These different concepts of morality and its bases gives two different approaches regarding the moral philosophy.
The David Hume
David Hume approach regarding the morality is an empirical approach that based on experimental and naturalistic. David moral philosophy is the higher part of the experimental explanation of human nature. David approach to moral philosophy reflects the philosophy of mind that is based on empiricism. David treats ethics with politics, history, psychology, and aesthetics; he studied as a moral science. David Hume more emphasis and interesting to explain morality as a natural phenomenon. Discuss moral aspect as a physical world where there is a causal explanation of things. According to this point of view there, everything has an empirical answer and investigation. David Hume compares animals and humans for the foundation of the moral grounds there is some features of mind are common between human and animals.
The Immanuel Kant
Compare David Hume with Immanuel Kant, as compared to David Kant more emphasis on the prior investigation of morality investigation. Kant closely links morality with the nature of human being (Kleingeld and Pauline, 2018). But as compared to David Kant more emphasis on the morality is based on the supreme moral principles, due to which they only can be discovered through philosophical approach. Immanuel Kant morality commands are unconditional (Guyer and Paul, 2014). He rejects the David Hume empirical approach, Kant argues that through practical approach you tell us how people can do, but this approach cannot tell us what ought to be.
The relation between religion and morality
Immanuel Kant and David Hume majority of works found to be the element of religion in the morality. They differ each other, but they have some things in common. Especially the question regarding the role of religion in morality or the relation between morality and religion. Above all the differences both scholars agreed on the point of religion in the morality. Both the scholar secular advocate of moral philosophy(Lovejoy and Arthur, 2017). Both David and Kant distinct the morality and religion he argues that these two are separate from each other.
David Hume concept regarding morality he argues that the GOD have nothing with the foundation of morality and religion and morality is two different things.
While Immanuel Kant argues that the foundation of morality is nothing with religion and morality are independent and does not depend on the religion.
Conclusion
Ethics and moral principles have an essential role in our life. Origin of these moral principles and ethics have not clear. Some school of thoughts argues that the origin of moral principles are linked with culture, some argue that the origin of these moral principles are divine origin or link with religion. Moral principles have a very close relationship with the society. It is not crystal clear about the origin of the moral principles. David and Kant fully reject the relation between religion and moral values; both philosopher argues that there is no relation between these two, one of the scholar argued that morality based on the human nature is the heart of the morality, while Kant argues that law and obligation are the centers of morality. The history of moral principles traces back to Babylonian civilization.
Work cited
Cushman, Fiery Andrews. The origins of moral principles. Harvard University, 2008.
Guyer, Paul. Kant. Routledge, 2014.
Kleingeld, Pauline. “The Principle of Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory: Its Rise and Fall.” (2018).
Lovejoy, Arthur. The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Routledge, 2017.
