Regularian Perspectives To Gain A Sense Of Why It Is Importa

Regularian Perspectives to Gain a Sense Of Why It Is Important To Subje

Regularian perspective emphasizes the importance of viewing morality not merely as a set of rules but as guidelines that must be applied thoughtfully to complex circumstances in life. This perspective suggests that moral actions are those that conform to established rules or laws, which can include commands, directives, policies, procedures, codes of ethics, and laws. The core belief is that acts are morally right if they obey these rules, and individuals are obligated to follow them without being swayed by desires or emotions. Such rule-based ethics aim to facilitate objective decision-making, promoting consistency and neutrality in moral judgments.

However, this perspective faces significant challenges. One critical problem is the reliance on the existence of moral rules—what happens if a rule is immoral or unjust? An example is the Nuremberg Defense, where individuals claimed they acted legally under Hitler’s authority but committed morally condemned acts, such as crimes against humanity. Additionally, conflicts between rules pose dilemmas: what should an individual do if two rules conflict? The typical approach assumes that the decision-maker will resolve such conflicts by identifying other rules that clarify or override the initial conflicting rules. The fundamental step remains to identify which rule or rules must be followed in a given situation.

The strength of the regularian approach lies in its call for obedience to established moral standards, ensuring predictability and accountability. Nonetheless, its weaknesses include the potential endorsement of unjust rules, the difficulty in resolving conflicts between competing rules, and the risk of blindly following laws that may be outdated or morally wrong. Therefore, while rule adherence provides an essential foundation in moral reasoning, it must be complemented by moral reflection to assess the justice and morality of individual rules themselves.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The Regularian perspective in moral philosophy emphasizes the significance of following established rules and laws as the foundation for ethical decision-making. This perspective is rooted in deontological principles, which argue that morality is primarily about duty and obligation, independent of consequences. According to this view, individuals should act in accordance with rules that are recognized universally as morally correct. In the context of criminal justice and ethics, this perspective underscores the importance of upholding laws, policies, and standard procedures as a moral imperative, believing that such consistency fosters fairness and social order.

One of the primary strengths of the regularian approach is its promotion of moral clarity. When individuals know the rules and recognize their authority, decision-making becomes more straightforward, less subject to personal bias, and more predictable. This clarity aligns with the concept that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and adherence to these rules is what defines moral virtue. For example, laws against theft or violence embody societal rules that, when followed, contribute to maintaining social stability and trust. Hence, the regularian perspective supports a stable moral framework that provides clear directives for conduct.

Nevertheless, the regularian approach faces notable criticisms, particularly when rules are flawed, unjust, or conflicting. The case of the Nuremberg Defense illustrates how individuals justified heinous acts solely based on obedience to authority or rules, despite moral condemnation. This highlights a limitation: the assumption that rules are always morally sound disregards the possibility that rules themselves may be unjust or morally wrong. In such cases, blind obedience could perpetuate harm or injustice. Furthermore, conflicts between rules—such as one law requiring obedience and another advocating for compassion—pose dilemmas. The approach assumes that decision-makers can identify which rule takes precedence, but this is often not straightforward.

In complex moral situations, the regularian perspective recommends a structured process: first, identify the applicable rules; second, evaluate potential conflicts; and third, determine which rule or rules to prioritize. This systematic methodology ensures that moral decisions are grounded in recognized standards, providing consistency and predictability. However, reliance solely on rules may neglect moral reasoning about the fairness or justice embodied within those rules. For example, laws that discriminate against certain groups or suppress individual freedoms may be technically obeyed but ethically questionable.

The limitations of the regularian perspective have prompted calls for integrating moral reflection and critical evaluation of rules. Morality cannot rest solely on obedience to authority; it must also involve assessing whether such rules serve justice and human dignity. Consequently, while the regularian perspective offers important advantages in promoting consistency and objectivity, it must be balanced with moral discernment and humanistic considerations. Especially in diverse societies where rules may be imperfect or evolving, moral agents should critically evaluate the rules they follow.

In conclusion, the regularian perspective underscores the importance of rule adherence in ethical decision-making, fostering stability and fairness within social systems. Its strength lies in providing clear guidelines that facilitate objective judgments. However, its weaknesses—namely, potential obedience to unjust laws and conflict among rules—highlight the need for moral reflection and critique. Ultimately, a comprehensive approach to morality incorporates adherence to rules alongside critical evaluation of their moral validity, ensuring that ethical actions align not only with laws but also with principles of justice and human rights.

References

• Furrow, D. (2005). Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy. New York: Continuum Books.
• Dreisbach, C. (2008). Ethics in Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, 2002. Cambridge University Press.
• Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Critique of Utilitarianism. Clarendon Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Williams, B. (1973). Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, J. (2014). The Many Faces of Morality. Philosophical Quarterly, 64(258), 503–520.