You can infer from her essay that she does not agree with this lifestyle. In her essay she states, “Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.” This is in fact a true statement. By becoming morally agnostic its like you don't care. you in other words have no morals. Ayn Rand seems to agree that this is a bad
Rachels and Benedict disagree about how relative is morality.in one hand Rachels express that morality is not relative, because from his point of view what is right or wrong cannot be based in one society code; it is clear that what is approved in one culture can be disapproved in other, so there is no absolute true nor a single standard to follow. Rachels state that there are some moral rules that all societies will have in common, because those rules are necessary for society to exist. According to this he think that there is some universal codes that have to be maintain for a healthy balance. Benedict in the other hand believes that morality is relative. According to benedict morality depends on each culture behavior, and how society mold
“It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission. In Bratty V Attorney-General , Lord Denning said that it must be a voluntary act to be punished. Voluntary act is when an individual has complete control and conscious exercise of will on his/her body. Saying if A failed to save B, but A did no positive act to cause B’s death, should A be liable? Omission cannot form the base of actus reus of an offence.
Wilson is absolutely sure in his point of view; and according to that in “The Biological Basis of Morality” he says “I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists” (1998, p.112). In other words, it means that E.O. Wilson believes that moral values are independent from God or another perfect being; and come along with humans. It is not necessary to be a God to distinguish what is good and wrong. However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will.
After all, no one person wants to be treated as a tool. The greater good is all fine and good, but a person’s individual good is also as important. However, arguments notwithstanding, if people solely follow this punishment theory, then yes, their actions can be justified. Of course, many immoral acts can be justified under this theory which makes it a very dangerous theory, if it is the only theory society is
The other obligations are on a more personal level and vary on every person. People have to act accordingly to their obligations regardless of the positive or negative outcome of their actions. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, and it is right to keep promises and to help people. One should not lie about anything even though that lie could save a lot of lives. In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics).
PERCEPTIONS AS A DIRECT SOURCE OF MORAL KNOWLEDGE Simple perception, whether moral or not, does not entail belief formation, but the fact that it is not related to one’s personal belief does not in the least preclude its presenting perceivers with much information about the object perceived. Perception explains in good part why it can both justify beliefs appropriately connected with its content and ground knowledge about its object. But if, in perceiving an object, we in some way process information as is widely held among psychologists as well as philosophers one may wonder whether perception is in some way
it is an unconditional statement .taking the feelings as personal aspect and taking moral at first sight. A proper set of rules which cannot be changed comes under this imperative. Kant’s theory has a categorical imperative as it holds a clear and ordered command. Intrinsic Value: “The value in which we consider as a mean not as a source is known as intrinsic”.when we consider a certain thing or person as an end in itself it becomes intrinsic. Focusing on the emotions of the people and taking care of their passion is a moral and ethical norm which should never be forgotton.
It means that they only do a certain action to reach their own personal desire. On the other hand, Agape love, is altruistic, meaning a person will give even there is nothing in return. For this reason, loving the neighbor does not even mean pleasing them or us. It is our will to love others whether they please us or
Natural resources are considered as a gift from the god and they are inherited property of all mankind. These resources cannot be appropriated for private use by any individual. The state can give the ownership right to an individual only when there is something beneficial coming outof it, but not at the cost of environment. Intrue sense, state is altruist.The protection of natural resourceshas also given rise to the concept of sustainable development for present time as well as for future time. After taking the view from all the interpretations,this can be said that each case depends on its factuality.