Download pdf
Morality Evaluation: Two Perspectives from Motivation Theory and Consequentialism
- 1 Jilin University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Morality is a significant component of human behaviour norms and plays a crucial role. With the involvement of morality, a fundamental question must be asked: which behaviours should be considered “good”, and which should be considered “evil”? This involves the issue of the ethical evaluation criteria of morality. Among the whole question, it is clear that the standard that is truly important to morality evaluation should be discussed. Obviously, different theories have different attitudes toward it. For example, utilitarians insist that the value of morality comes from fulfilling people’s need, especially their emotional requirements, which means that only a movement that leads to a “good” result can be appraised as moral; moreover, deontologists argues that morality is made to demonstrate the transcendental and inevitable essence of human beings, such as liberty or free will, in other words, morality should be used to describe a motive which is accord with the essence. By discussing the debate between motivation theory and consequentialism, this article aims to investigate the two most important criteria for the evaluation of morality: whether it is universally valid and whether it is operable. Moreover, the analysis and discussion contribute to a more in-depth understanding of the fundamental ethical issue of identifying “goodness”.
Keywords
moral evaluation, deontology, utilitarianism, motivation
[1]. Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a More Pragmatic Approach to Morality: A Critical Evaluation of Kohlberg's Model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629–649.
[2]. Sanghera, B. (2016), Charitable giving and lay morality: understanding sympathy, moral evaluations and social positions. The Sociological Review, 64: 294-311.
[3]. Christen, M., Ineichen, C., & Tanner, C. (2014). How "moral" are the principles of biomedical ethics?--a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis. BMC medical ethics, 15, 47.
[4]. Smith, A. (2002). Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) (K. Haakonssen, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]. Hume, David (1998 [1751]). An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals: A Critical Edition, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[6]. Hume, David (2007 [1739-1740]) A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition, ed. David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[7]. Hume, David Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Eugene F. Miller, revised edition, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987).
[8]. Ten, C. (Ed.). (2009). Mill's On Liberty: A Critical Guide (Cambridge Critical Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9]. Bentham, J. (1988). The Principles of Morals and Legislation.
[10]. Immanuel Kant: Werke in zwölf Bänden. Band 7, Frankfurt am Main 1977, S. 11. Erstdruck: Riga (Hartknoch) 1785. Der Text folgt der 2. (verbesserten) Auflage, Riga (Hartknoch) 1786.
[11]. Irrlitz, G. (2002). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785). In: Kant-Handbuch. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart.
[12]. Irrlitz, G. (2015). Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (1788). In: Kant-Handbuch. J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart.
[13]. Immanuel Kant. (1913). Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Kritik der Urtheilskraft. De Gruyter.
[14]. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). Marx & Engels Collected Works Vol 05: Marx and Engels:1845-1847. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
[15]. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German Ideology: including Theses on Feuerbach and an Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy. Prometheus Books.
[16]. Kai Nielsen. (1989). Marxism and the moral point of view: morality, ideology, and historical materialism, Westview Press.
Cite this article
Zhang,X. (2023). Morality Evaluation: Two Perspectives from Motivation Theory and Consequentialism. Communications in Humanities Research,9,64-68.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).