Most systems of morality I am familiar wtih forbid certain actions.
ie. don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t steal
Are there any systems of morality require certain actions?
Systems of morality based on reason would be preferable.
I know Christianity/Judaism requires keeping Holy the Sabbath and Honoring your parents.
Thanks.
I can’t think of any non-religious system which compels specific actions quite the same way as the religiously related moralities.
However, many moral systems do require specific actions, it’s just that sometimes that they are phrased in the negative.
Kant vs. lying is the first one that pops into my head. To severely paraphrase: under no circumstances is it morally right to tell a lie. You could turn that around into a statement that gave a specific instruction about what was right. ie, a Kantian must tell the truth.
It just occurred to me that Buddhism requires right thought and right action (and some other stuff too 
)
cheers,
gemty
The good samaritean law ? passed somewhere in the US which required innocent bystanders to lose their innocence and call the police or help the person in jeopardy as long as they didn’t put themselves at risk.
I’m not sure what you’re asking though.
What does morality have to do with religious dogma ?
Since the study of ethics is the study of what required actions a person should take (or behaviors he should exhibit) in order to lead the most prosperous or virtuous life, then even that requirement seems to exist in all ethical systems as a positive requirement.
It sounds like you could rename the prescriptions affirmatively: “Abstain from killing, lying, stealing, etc.” and they would still be affirmative, as well.
Besides that, working from an understanding of how normative judgments are made within certain ethical systems, there are plenty of required actions. For instance, in Kantian ethics, you are given the command to treat all people as an ends, but not a mere means, and to perform only the actions that you could will to a universal law.
From other deontologies, The Golden Rule, to treat others how you would like to be treated, is another prescription common to most ethical systems. In utilitarianism, the requirement of people is to follow the Happiness and Harm Principles. These are not negative statements in any way.
[/quote]
Absolutely - Utilitarianism requires action, specifically the action that promotes the greatest good.
There is the “conundrum” (in quotes because I have no idea how this is actually perceived as a conumdrum) where a train is heading down a track and about to kill 10 people - and you can pull a switch and have the train go down a different track, where it will only kill 1 person - do you pull the switch and directly cause the death of a person, or do you allow 10 to die through inaction?
Barring extra knowledge (the one person is Ghandi, the 10 people are rapists), Utilitarianism unequivocally requires you to pull the switch, and have 1 person die instead of 10.
It’s an interesting meta-ethical question of whether an ethical theory SHOULD require action. It’s essentially the difference of precision - if you merely forbid some actions, you leave ambiguous what is the “morally right” course of action (for, if there is a morally right course of action, clearly it is compulsive to take that action). But if you have an ethical theory that DOES require action, it seems necessarily more precise in what it qualifies as “good” and “bad”. This kind of precision seems clearly a good thing - isn’t it better to have a stronger idea of what is “right” and “wrong” than only a fuzzy idea? If one accepts this line of reasoning, it would seem to follow that moral systems that only forbid certain actions require improvement before they can be considered “morally complete” in some sense.
Like Philosophermer said, most biblical moral suggestions can be stated in a way that requires action. The reason most are written to provoke inaction instead of action is because action takes effort, and action statements implie effort. Action uses energy, inaction is not using energy. Thus, a bible of inaction statements seem easier than one full of action statements. If somebody tells you “Don’t abstain from walking across this road” and another tells you “Walk across this road” you’ll be inclined to choose the first because it intuitively seems to take less effort.
If your purpose is to prevent deaths then you will flip the switch, but if your purpose is to relieve yourself from guilt or blame you may choose not to. The conundrum arises because people want to do both (be guiltless and prevent deaths), so we ask which is more important.
Sure… but although I agree that the answer varies by individual (and I agree that morality is relative), practically, it seems that there IS a correct answer. What kind of asshole values his own level of guilt over NINE LIVES??? What an imbalance!
Secondly, I am confident that I wouldn’t feel a shred of guilt in pulling the lever, because doing the best you can is always a good thing. In that situation, it’s a GOOD thing to kill the one guy, if that’s the only way you can save the 10. Now, sure, I would probably lose some sleep over the fact that I had to watch the guy die - but guilt? No way.