Philosophy

James Rachels, in his book Elements of Moral Philosophy tried to define morality. The task of defining morality turned out to be difficult and daunting as people and philosophers from time immemorial have tried defining morality and characterizing it in order to fully understand what this word encompasses. He touched on the different ideas, dwelling on ideas regarding different cultures and how it has unique customs and way of thinking. He explained how it may be difficult for someone to comprehend differences and that different cultures necessarily imply different moral codes and standards. In Elements of Moral Philosophy James Rachels also points out that there are two sides to the issue and taking it too seriously could lead to negative results. Rachels talks of the problem also of choosing which between all theories on ethics should be adhered to. While it is impossible to do so because all philosophers have reliable views on such,  the important thing is that one should be able to gauge the different responses to different moral questions and understand why such exist. The key is an understanding of what these moral questions are all about and the theories that exist behind them.
Kant and Ross are both philosophers with influential views both had views on Ethics. Both had strong views and interpretations of what moral philosophy is all about.
    Immanuel Kant (17241804) argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he called the Categorical Imperative (CI). Immorality requires a violation of the Categorical Imperative and is therefore unreasonable. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality.
These standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or rooted on sui generis rational intuitions. (Bruce, 1979 )  Kant promulgated the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. But he contended that conformity to the categorical imperative and likewise to moral requirements is essential to rational agency. The primary principle of morality, the categorical imperative, is really, the law of an autonomous will. The philosophy of Kants views is founded on reason, whose reach in practical affairs goes further than human slave to passions. It is this self-governing reason that people can decide and create their own views based on equal worth and respect.
Kants most significant opinions are found in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter, Groundwork) but he created, enhanced, and in some cases adapted those views in later works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View and Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. ( Herman, 1993 ) The important goal and purpose of moral philosophy, as found in Groundwork is to find out and look for the foundational principle of metaphysics as morals. Kant, in his works, analyzed the commonsense ideas about morality. He tried to find out where moral judgments are based. Kant aimed to realize and establish the foundational moral principle as a demand of each persons rational will. ( Kant, 1785 ) He also expounded on the view that we, possess autonomy.  Furthermore, he asserted that moral philosophy must dwell on the ultimate end of human life, which is the highest good, and its relationship to the moral life. In the Critique of Pratical Reason, Kant argued that this highest good for humanity is complete moral virtue coupled with complete happiness, with the former a condition in order to attain the latter. He, however, admitted that there is no real possibility of moral perfection and only a few fully deserve the happiness that people enjoy.
Kants study of commonsense ideas begins with his view that he only thing good without qualification is good will. The good will is close to the idea of a good person. This idea is what makes a good person good in his ownership of a will that is ascertained by moral law. The idea of good will is the idea that one only makes decisions that are morally worthy, taking moral considerations as a guide for behavior.  In Kants terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by moral demands or as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law. (Kant, 1788)  Human beings see this law as a restriction on their desires, and therefore a will in which the Moral Law is influential is provoked by the thought of duty.
According to Kant, duties are created by rules or laws of some sort. However, people also have an inert will to doing his or her part in maintaining civil or social order, towards punishments or reputation when such laws are violated. Kants account, therefore of moral requirements and the nature of moral reasoning is based on his idea that moral considerations are the reasons for people to act. Thus, Kant formulated the categorical imperative wherein he says that  I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. (Timmons, 2002) This is the guiding principle of what inspires a good will and the fundamental principle of all morality.
    Kants views are widely acceptable because of the humanity reasoning behind the categorical imperative. This states that one should not act in a way that we treat humanity, whether within us or with regard to others. This is synonymous to respect for people. Proper regard for something with unconditional value or worth requires respect for it. An important way in which we respect people is referred to as recognition respect by Darwall (1985). This view better captures Kants position I may respect you because you are a student, a teacher, a lawyer or a father. In such cases, respect afforded to a person because of who or what she is and giving proper regard to a fact about one, as a student or a lawyer for instance. We are to respect human beings simply because they are persons and this requires a certain sort of regard.
    Kant also talked of the Kingdom of Ends formula. This formula has gained reputation in the recent years. ( Rawls, 1972). Many view it as introducing a social dimension to Kantian morality. Kant says that this concept is based on the idea that every rational will must regard itself as enacting laws binding all rational will and is closely related to the idea of a systematic union of different rational beings under common laws, or a kingdom of ends. He explains this in the Categorical Imperative and says that we must act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends. ( Kant, 1785 ) Thus one must  act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means. The idea here is that everyone is intrinsically valuable. One must treat people as valuable in their own right rather than merely as useful tools or devices by means of which we can satisfy our own goals or purposes. Other people are valuable not merely insofar as they can serve our purposes they are also valuable in themselves, as human beings. (Hinmans, 2001)
    At the center of all of Kants moral theory is the idea that rational human wills are autonomous. This was Kants key to understanding and justifying the authority moral requirements over people. Kants view is that freedom does not consist in being bound by no law, but rather by laws that are in some sense of ones own making. Thus, laws are made and laid down by oneself, and therefore, laws have decisive authority over oneself.
    Kant likewise talks of virtue and vice. He defines virtue as the moral strength of a human beings will in fulfilling his duty and vice as a principled immorality. (Kant, 1785) Kant understands virtues to be understandable only in terms of a prior account of moral or dutiful behavior. He puts into place the principles of moral conduct based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then based on that, names and classifies virtue as the trait of acting according to these principles. Furthermore, virtue is a strength of will and a disposition of ones will.  A virtue is some sort of excellence of the soul. 
    Ross, on the other hand, who translated the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, talks of virtue as about pleasures and pains the actions that are its source also increase it, or i they are done badly, ruin it and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources.  The practices of virtue in communities give us a sense of what we, as its members, should be doing. They are activities of the ancient Athenians existing for more than five hundred years when he discussed them. Aristotle hoped for the ancient Athens to replicate actions of virtues and the only way to achieve this is to make them understand and realize that practices of virtues are good for the public, through bringing it to their reflection. Virtues are practices which give the local community a feeling of a frame of goodness. This frame is the scenario placed so that a person can build his own character, through consistency in the practices of these virtues. In building up this character in his course of life through practices of virtues, there are changes which eventually connect them to virtuousness. Having this character is of utmost importance, such that, this built character, through a long time of consistency of virtue practice, cannot easily be swayed whenever huge changes take place. The person cannot easily lose his mind and go to pieces. He can easily handle distressing situations.
    In this, there should be a respect for the propagation of specific kinds of practices, to be called and not categorized in a general term of concept, in this case, not to be a general virtue category. And in this, there are a number of specific kinds of virtues that cannot be reduced to one another, since it entails different essences.
    However, the practices of the virtues, according to Aristotle are through the process of trial and error, such that it exists on means between extremes. It factors in its reflection the evidences, particulars, peers and a lot of deliberation, although we constantly remind ourselves that this rationality does not partake of mathematical calculations. These are all in the prospect of socialization and not of isolation. All of them are done voluntarily and individually and no one can do the task of virtue for another. These virtues are then of utmost importance for the general happiness of the community. Examples of these virtues discussed by Aristotle are generosity, magnificence, magnanimity in small and large honors, justice and friendship. The first kind of justice, lawfulness and fairness, entails just acts as actions ascribed and required by the letter of the law.
    The Nicomachean Ethics states that one type of justice is as lawful as ones being law abiding. Being just for him, is the act of being lawful and whatever is lawful is in some way just. (Bloom, 1985) These two, lawfulness and justice, are not mutually exclusive since doing one follows that you are also doing the other. It naturally follows then that justice is concerned with the good, since law abidingness concerned itself with the good. Moreover, being lawful is concerned with virtue, as it requires actions that express the other virtues and prohibits those that express the vices.(Bloom, 1985) This of course presupposes that the laws made are good and express virtue, which Aristotle is right in doing so. He goes on to say that, 
    This type of justice, then, is complete virtue, not compete virtue unconditionally, but complete virtue in relation to another. And this is why justice often seems to be supreme among virtues, and neither the evening star nor the morning star is so marvelous, and the proverb says And in justice all virtue is summed up. (Bloom, 1985)
Clearly, Aristotle wishes to reiterate the point that it is in following the law of the land that one does good and thereby becomes virtuous. Justice seen in this light gives due importance to an individuals inherent capability to follow the law. The next type of justice that Aristotle identifies is one of rectification. Here the law looks only at differences in the harm (inflicted) and treats people involved as equals, when one does injustice while the other suffers it, and one has done the harm while the other has suffered it hence the judge tries to restore this unjust situation to equality, since it is unequal. (Bloom, 1985)  Aristotle states
Hence what is equal is intermediate between more and less in contrary ways, since more good and less evil is profit, and the contrary is loss and the intermediate area between (profit and loss) we have found, is what is equal, which we say is just. ( Bloom, 1985)
    There are laws legislated to specifically protect people from exploitation. This is how justice is promoted. Similar with the aforementioned sort, the third type of justice that Aristotle gives is that of distribution. This is concerned with allocation and the proportionality. However unlike the second one which is about someone wronged and seeking equality, this kind is about equality in the sense of exchange.
He explains the rationale behind this statement in Ethics saying,
The reason is that all law is universal, but in some areas no universal rule can be correct and so where a universal rule has to be made, but cannot be correct, the law chooses the universal rule that is usually correct, well aware of the error being made. And the law is no less correct on this account for the source of the error is not the law or the legislator, but the nature of the object itself, since that is what the subject-matter of actions is bound to be like.(Bloom, 1985)
    Thus, the justice of decency takes place in such transgressions, rectifying the wrong made with regard to deficiencies in law. There are just some things that are logically unjust even though there are no written laws regarding it. What this statement implores us to do is to follow this universal rule, of not merely pushing them aside because they arent in the letter of the law.