I would like to answer your question in a different way- tell me if a human-being does something morally admirable why cant he get admiration and if he does not get admiration morally then what is the another form of admiration?
Moral excellence always deserve praise respect and admiration by the society. But it takes time. Through out your life you have to show moral performance of exceeding virtue.
The teachers are said to be role models for Character education- ethical behaviour to the students. We always do morally right- that's the reason we are in a noble profession of teaching.
The answer therefore is appreciation by words are always not exhibited every time you do the right thing but the world always know what is right and what is wrong, what is ethical and what is not.
You are admired by others within which can be witnessed by their respect and attitude towards you
Admiration from the humanly point of view may not always be the case. There are many opposer's to the exhibition of good morals due to the high and uncensored immorality everywhere. Jesus was not admired by many for his goodness and high sense of morality.
Yet, what should be of prime importance to us is the approval, favor and admiration we earn from God (Allah). The admiration from some men may be considered as an added advantage though.
Within the Kantian philosophy of moral values, there is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs transcends human dependence on passion. However, the case of euthanasia is a clear instance of counter evidence. The doctor, who morally should save a patient, decides to do otherwise for ending the agony of the patient. Surprisingly, although the doctor has morally accomplished the right thing, his/her act fails to be morally admirable.
I would like to answer your question in a different way- tell me if a human-being does something morally admirable why cant he get admiration and if he does not get admiration morally then what is the another form of admiration?
Moral excellence always deserve praise respect and admiration by the society. But it takes time. Through out your life you have to show moral performance of exceeding virtue.
The teachers are said to be role models for Character education- ethical behaviour to the students. We always do morally right- that's the reason we are in a noble profession of teaching.
The answer therefore is appreciation by words are always not exhibited every time you do the right thing but the world always know what is right and what is wrong, what is ethical and what is not.
You are admired by others within which can be witnessed by their respect and attitude towards you
Surely a person can do the right thing from a morally bad motive, thus failing to be morally admirable. E.g. I might act not out of a concern to see justice done or to fulfill a moral duty but simply to get revenge.
Within the Kantian philosophy of moral values, there is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs transcends human dependence on passion. However, the case of euthanasia is a clear instance of counter evidence. The doctor, who morally should save a patient, decides to do otherwise for ending the agony of the patient. Surprisingly, although the doctor has morally accomplished the right thing, his/her act fails to be morally admirable.
For a person to be morally admirable I am pretty sure Prof you know the kinds of sacrifices that are involved .
If some one is worthy enough to be morally admired then they know the price to be paid . He /she will think before wrong doing .
Doing one thing right, if compels them to follow morality then on, may be time will tell it will not nullify what has been done so far (or at least I am not so forgiving )
This is often the choice between bad and worse, so my answer is YES.
In history, we often witness this phenomenon. For example, the famous commander of Kutuzov after the Battle of Borodino surrendered Moscow for tactical reasons, well aware that strategically he would still defeat Napoleon. Of course, he was morally suppressed by this decision, but considered this decision to be the only correct one under those circumstances.
There have been some studies on how people intuitively make judgments about moral responsibility for positive and negative actions of actors. Proximal (when actor is attending to means of doing something) and distal (when actor is focusing on the consequence of doing something) intents of the actors play a role in making such judgments. Which of the two intents are given more importance? That can be discerned by manipulating proximal and distal intents. When both distal and proximal intents exist, the actor is considered to be most responsible for their actions. Other factors that affect judgment of moral responsibility are construal level and action identification, beliefs in free will, culture, etc.
Jason Plaks of University of Toronto and David Pizarro of Cornell University have done some research on this topic.
So, whether people consider someone to be 'morally admirable' for doing good probably depends upon what they know about the intents of the actor. Good (proximal+distal) intents matter more than good acts.
Another issue is deciding what is 'right', as we have seen in trolley and footbridge type dilemmas, where saving many people involves harming or killing one person. From a deontological perspective, killing one person is wrong, even if it saves many people. From a utilitarian perspective, what matters is the overall utility and hence, killing one person is the right thing to do if that would save many people. So, someone with deontological commitments will consider an actor not admirable even if he does something that by utilitarian principle is the right thing to do.
Article Construal Level and Free Will Beliefs Shape Perceptions of A...