As stated in the textbook, Think Critical Thinking and Logical Skills For Everyday Life by Judith A Boss, there are two primary forms of moral theories. The first of these two theories are “those that claim that morality is relative” and the second is “those that claim that morality is universal” (Boss, 279). Moral relativists states that there is no universal law or view on what is considered to be morally right and what is morally wrong (Boss 279). In contrast, a universal morality states that there are specific moral values or views that all should follow (Boss, 279). Both of these views are filled with flaws.
Moreover, there is no universal truth in ethics, only various cultural codes instead. On the other point of view, it has been suggested that the world should derive an objective truth in every action. This essay will argue against the existence of objective truth in
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
Morals may be an examination for ethical quality, originates from the out of date "ethos" significance custom or inclination. It might be an examination for speculations concerning the thing that may awesome and severe dislike on humankind's immediate. There is no particular arranged from guaranteeing laws portraying the thing that may moral and the thing that may be not, in perspective there may be no straight on the other hand terrible reaction. Those second feeling about morals talk of "codes of morals", which would an arrangement of principles serve as bearing with individuals, every now and again to fields from guaranteeing callings for instance, such that advantages of the business or remedial. Moral differentiations for untrustworthy
In Response to McGrath’s Dilemma Against Moral Inferentialism An influential argument for moral skepticism is the moral regress argument (Sayre-McCord 1996). Moral inferentialists, who think we do have genuine moral knowledge, argue against the moral regress argument by rejecting the picture of justification one finds in the moral regress argument. Sarah McGrath (2004), in order to make room for her non-inferential moral perception account of moral knowledge, presents a dilemma against moral inferentialism, the thesis that all of our moral knowledge of particular cases is inferential. In particular, she challenges the most compelling version of moral inferentialism, which I call moral bridge inferentialism. In this paper, I argue that both horns of McGrath’s apparent dilemma turn out to lack argumentative weight against the moral bridge inferentialist.
Kant argued that it was Hume's philosophy, flinched from the "dogmatism". However, in the changed context and something unlike Hume, Kant had just sense a source of moral norms. The changed context consisted in the fact that Kant does not ask how to justify all value judgments in the same way, rather than separately dealing with the so-called morality in the narrow sense, that is, the attitudes on which it is possible to agree all and make them subject to an obligation or duty and other value judgments in which it sets the request. This difference, which extends along ethic is well understood. You can consider that a good deal of long
Critique of the Epicurus’ theory of the most valuable pleasure The goal of this essay is to provide an argument against possibility of Epicurus’ attempt to determine the most valuable pleasures. Through the analysis of the key concepts and their relation in Epicurus’ theory I will try to show that his concept of pleasure does not take into account basic human psychology and that this oversight leads to faulty generalization about human nature. I will argue that it is not possible to identify the most valuable pleasure due to diversity of our personalities.
Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist
According to John Rawls, his ‘A Theory of Justice’ is an attempt to offer a system of justice, which is a viable substitute to the prevalent practice of choosing a deviation of the principle of utilitarianism which is limited by the intuitionism of people (Rawls, viii). This, Rawls reasons, is because despite the sophistication of the various theories of Utilitarianism presented by philosophers like Bentham and Mill, it failed to work out a “systematic moral conception” leaving a difference between the principles of Utility and the moral sentiments of the people (ibid). The alternative system of justice provided by Rawls is an attempt to address this difference with rationality. The function of rationality here is to produce a theory that can consistently provide an explanation for human behaviour and motivation. This alternative system of justice is described as ‘justice as fairness’.
Copleston in one of his books, A History of Philosophy opines that, it is really difficult for one to totally reject all the old values or binding force of what is customarily called morality. This is because, one who attempts this, may degenerate himself as to destroy himself morally, since the traditional morality has put into cognizance, the values that enhance the dignity of the human person, morally and likewise. Then it becomes questionable, as to why Nietzsche calls the old morality the slave morality, even when he retains some of the values in his master morality.
Society tends to disagree with Ayn Rand’s political views regarding the concept of how a government should be controlled. Despite people contradicting with her beliefs, some politicians recognize her perspective and utilize her logic in debates. Of the politicians that support Rand’s political views, most derive their logic from one of Rand’s widely known novels, Anthem. This particular dystopian novel emphasizes a collective society where the simple thinking of individual choice is prohibited. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator of the republican party, was influenced by Anthem in such a way that he utilized this book in a debate he took part in back in 2007 which lasted until 2013.
“We are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, One, indivisible and forever” (Rand 19). How can an individual be a hero in a collectivist society? In The Anthem, a novella by Ayn Rand, the protagonist, Equality 7-2521 is portrayed as an archetypal epic hero. Equality 7-2521 exhibits the characteristics of an epic hero because he is capable of great deeds, he has a nemesis, and he experiences an event that leads to a quest.
In her critique, Carnivalesque Freedom in Hawthorne’s YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN, Selina Jamil proposes that although there in an obvious theme of the human heart’s confrontation with evil, there is also a carnivalesque theme that is exemplified when the use of irony and parody ridicule the Puritan idea of virtue as well as the power of evil itself. Jamil continues that the carnivalesque theme further establishes that the “encounter with evil teaches the average mind to replace naiveté with skepticism.” Ultimately, Jamil states that there is no resolution with the internal conflict of Goodman Brown just like there is no resolution as to whether the “witch meeting” was reality or a dream. If Jamil indeed believes that YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN exemplifies a feature of Bakhtinian carnival, then Bakhtinian carnival concepts should, at the very least, be mentioned. Jamil offers a look at the ridicule of the Puritan idea of virtue and the “power” of evil itself by suggesting that the rituals displayed by Hawthorne “parodically mirror” that of the church; furthermore, the irony found in the “sable form” stating that
Anthem Essay Topic 1 Ayn Rand's Anthem depicts a collectivist society where each person is stripped of his/her individuality and forced to do only things that work to better society. The protagonist, Equality 7-2521, has just invented some sort of lighting creation similar to the common lightbulb. Equality knows that his new invention may have a huge, and positive, impact on mankind. However, his knowledge of the prosperity that his creation could have on society is not what causes him to experience feelings of satisfaction and pride while constructing it. Equality's main source of motivation for creating the lightbox is to feel like he has something all to himself that another person is yet to have, and to experience a sense of accomplishment.