Proponents of this theory do not rely on a set of moral principles to determine how they should think or act. They also argue that; subjective individuals do not have the right to criticize or object to their actions; however, some find it possible to disagree (“Morality and Moral Theories”). The second theory, Ethical Egoism states that “right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest; also, that it is immoral to act contrary to your own self-interest” (“Morality and Moral Theories”). Proponents of this theory supports actions that maximizes self-interest. They claim that everyone is selfish because of human nature, which is a week point for this theory; given that morality encourages people to consider the interest and wellbeing of others.
An objective truth would inevitably diminish the traditional custom of a society and derive a substantive conclusion about a subject, compelling all communities to have one general truth without considering their belief and condition. In addition, a cultural differences argument is inconclusive since cultural relativism reminds us that objective truth does not have a plausible standard in every culture that is peculiar to the society. Besides, cultural relativism lets people keeping an open mind to accept the other’s culture instead of deriving a factual and debatable conclusion. It is better to adopt tolerance toward other’s culture, instead of arrogantly judging other society’s manner. To conclude, cultural relativism is essential as it induces the thinking to respect every cultural practice, where every society has their own unique moral
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
(James Rachels, 2014, p.35). Ethical subjectivism answers these questions because it claims there are no “objective” values in morality. In this view, moral thoughts are grounded in the person’s feelings, and nothing more. Though when it comes to objections, ethical subjectivism is no exception, it is even far more vulnerable that ethical egoism because of it’s claim that “ethics has no moral
Questions of morality are abstract and extremely touchy. They are subject to enduring debates regarding its origins, nature, and limits, with no possibility of a consensus. Although the theories on morality often pursue diverse angles, among the most interesting ones that have come up in recent times revolve around the question whether human beings are born with an innate moral sense. Some scholars hold the view that humans are born with an inherent sense of morality while others believe the opposite that humans are not born with an innate moral sense holds true. By using Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate and Paul Bloom’s Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, this essay will analyze the opinions advanced by both sides of the theories.
Moral relativism bases its theories on the idea that different cultures and peoples have varying points of view on the morality of certain experiences. Additionally, relativism claims that none of these viewpoints are inherently better than another. Thus, we conclude that there is no absolute standard for right or wrong behavior, and no correct moral judgement for any event. But why must this conclusion be so absolute? Could the conclusion not be that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong behavior in cases where the behavior is subjectivity is key?
To do anything that goes against your morality would leave anyone pondering what the 'right decision ' really is. In most cases, there is never truly a universal 'right answer ' and because of this, an individual 's feelings should not be "[regarded as] objects of utilitarian value" (Williams, p.490). What this means is that no one should think of anyone 's emotions as invalid due to a decrease in happiness amongst all people. What may seem to be obviously correct to one, can easily be seen as wrong, or simply the lesser of two evils to another. For utilitarianism to assume that we should all comply to actions that go against our morality, solely because of maximum happiness to those around you, often jeopardizes ones '
We should focus our lives on making things enjoyable. I not believe that humans are the center of the universe and this statement only prove how we are selfish and self-center individuals. Finally Secular humanism does not believe “in sin, except that of not letting everyone do his or her own thing”. This theory is very confusing because as a society there are things that we consider sins and morally wrong. For example, we do not let people steal just because they like finer things.
Indeed, moral progress or even moral change seems to be impossible for people adopting this kind of thinking which seems to infer the suspicious idea that the majority is always right (relatively to the culture). Why people who considered their rules of what is ethical and what is not as right would change them? One simple answer would be that they figured out that their rules were inappropriate. The problem is how would they consider that they were wrong if their unique standard is themselves? No way!
He believes that morality of individuals not make something actually moral. He is with moral nihilism but against moral relativism. There is nothing in principle objectionable that morality is true. Humans make up their own moral facts and believe them whereas there is nothing morally correct. A third moral nihilist argues that there is nothing in principle objectionable about neither moral nihilism or moral relativism.