Normative ethics refers to the inherent nature of human moral behavior. In this, human beings ask themselves about the best moral behavior in any given situation. The basic nature of morality and the reasons for moral action are investigated in this case. People act in a certain moral way because they believe that this is how they ought to act.
Metaethics, on the other hand, refers to the reason for the existence of ethics and moral reasoning. The question here refers to the nature of ethics, such as being relative or based upon self-interest.
(b) Ronald's view, that physician-assisted suicide is wrong because killing another person is always wrong is an example of moral objectivism, since it assumes the inherent existence of morality. It is also closer to the deontological view, which expects that duty and morality exist for the sake of duty or morality. There are hard and fast rules according to which human beings should act; these rules cannot be changed, regardless of the situation, which fits with Ronald's view that killing another person is always wrong.
Zoe's view is morally nihilistic and utilitarian, since it does not assume the inherent existence of morality, but focuses on the best outcome for all involved. Causing pain is a negative outcome for both herself and the person in pain.
Zoe's view is a case of moral objectivism that is also utilitarian, since it assumes that there is a moral obligation, but she does not assume that there is a single, universally applicable rule. Instead, her moral decision is based upon the fact that the best outcome for the individuals involved should guide moral decision making.
Niles's view that killing is neither always morally wrong nor always morally right appears to assume that there are no ethical rules at all, which is ultimately nihilistic. Since this view assumes the absolute absence of any morality, it is neither deontological nor utilitarian.
2 (a): Mackie's argument is based upon what can be investigated and perceived without assuming any intuition or knowledge that cannot be proven or explained rationally. Mary bases her argument on the same assumption. Since...
Killing millions of people, for example, like Hitler did during the Holocaust, results not only in the anger of millions of family members that could be seriously detrimental for the perpetrator, but also in factors like economic disadvantages. Murdering potential contributors to the economy, for example, is wrong because it is to the disadvantage of society's functioning. It could also result in the delinquency of millions of young people who are left orphans by the death of their parents. This is a further disadvantage for the optimal functioning of society, since these young people would grow up to be come criminals and the like, which is furthermore to the detriment of the economy and social peace. Hence, an apparently intrinsically moral action might be explained by its positive consequences in terms of the individual's or society's functioning and longevity.
(c): I am not sure that Mackie's arguments are entirely convincing to me. I cannot really believe that human beings do not have some intuition about morality. Indeed, most people are born with an innate sense of right and wrong, even before being schooled in these matters. Those who are born without this innate morality often grow up to do things that are completely immoral such as serial murder.
3. In this case, Mackie does convince me. Whatever the reason for continuing to make moral judgments, I believe that human beings, in general, will always see the advantage of doing so. Indeed, there are advantages to treating people in a way that is generally considered morally "good." Treating people in this way creates a sense of mutual regard and respect, which is an advantage for society at large.
Individuals live in society in order to gain advantages such as protection, services, and…
