In “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” Peter Kreeft argues that there are no moral absolutes because of the different cultures. Kreeft presents the moral relativism argument in his first two premises, through modus tollens, that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree and that not everyone agrees. The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value. Kreeft argues in the first premise that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg.
364-365). Raz also draws critique against Rawls’ choice of words, because it is unclear whether Rawls is advocating that civil disobedience means having the right to do something, compared to doing the right thing (Raz, p. 160). One often legally has the right to do something, but that does not mean it is the just thing to do. This interpretation suggests that although civil disobedience can be justified, society does not have a right to it. In contrary, sometimes in order to do justice, a person will not have the legal right to do something necessary.
That is not the case for everyone who beliefs in religion. Religion influences people into being a moral individual but cannot enforce morality on people. Chaucer wrote about corrupt church officials and religious members, not about the ones who actually served the Lord with mind, heart and soul, so there could have been people that were entirely committed to living a moral life due to religion and its
Francis Collins is right about this because people cannot prove something that is in the nature of this world to prove something that is supernatural. Many argue that God is not real because they do not see him or that there is no true evidence of him. As a matter of fact it would be like if an unborn child were to say that their
In addition there is the argument of judging a person morally and then denying them an education, and there is no easy answer for this question. Should a school be able to judge a person 's morals and does having questionable morals make you a unworthy student? Again there are no easy answers. As well being morally good or bad is a hard thing to distinguish even from one 's criminal record. In the article family spokesperson Najee Ali states “Everyone 's afraid of standing up for what 's morally right...People are afraid to hold people morally responsible.” This statement rings both true and false, it is not always true and at times should not even be considered as a factor because judging a person morals is a slippery slope that could lead to a culture of pretentiousness and falsehoods.
I agree with Blum’s proposal that in some sense moral excellence is not within our control, or within our will. It is the dimension of morality that is not up to us; some refer to it as moral luck. Part of the purpose of her paper was to provide the readers an appropriate understanding of the supreme value of moral excellence and why it is worthy of our highest admiration. I don’t believe she claims that we cannot reasonably aim to be like heroes or saints, but if one does aim to become a moral exemplar, one may not always succeed. In the chapter Emulating Moral Exemplars she states that while one might naturally be inclined to wish to become a moral exemplar, it is important to accept that for most persons this could not be accomplished.
In Hermann Hesse’s novel Siddhartha, Siddhartha goes through a spiritual journey, going through many challenges, making many mistakes, and eventually reaches enlightenment. Knowing what he learned on his journey, Siddhartha would disagree with atheism and thus the “Good without a god” campaign because he does not agree with atheism and believes making mistakes and doing bad things is a necessary part of life. Siddhartha would not agree with a secular point of view because his beliefs mostly resemble pantheistic beliefs, or someone who believes god is everything. Humanists beliefs say there is no god, creator, or supernatural being of any kind, but that we should all be good people. Darwin the Dog, from the “Kids without god” website says he, a humanist,”Doesn 't believe in any of the gods” (Kids Without God, Darwin the Dog).
For example, getting what you want may mean preventing others from getting what they want, so it seems impossible for everyone to be happy, and therefore moral. Kant does not agree with Aristotle on the claim that if you are moral, you are happy. He takes into account many instances where being moral does not lead to happiness, and where happiness does not entail morality. He goes on to explain that many people do not seem to know what makes them happy… “The concept of happiness is such an indeterminate concept that, although every human being wishes to attain this, he can still never say determinately and consistently with himself what he wishes and wills” (?????). Many tend to believe that attracted wealth will bring about happiness, but as studies show there is a cap where happiness levels off at a certain income, and it’s actually not that high.
There are many ways nurture can affect a kid 's personality. Studies show that nurture is more responsible for the way you act. Nurture dictates how you respond to others. It is true that many identical twins are a lot alike, but people don’t notice the differences between them. For example, the Jim twins were a lot alike, but I think that is just a coincidence.