Free will also creates a standard and moral responsibility for people to conform to. Free will causes people to hold themselves and others more responsible for their actions, as they agree that harsh consequences should follow if moral rules are broken. Free will encourages people to take responsibility for their moral actions and the potential consequences encourage more positive moral
Demonstrations made in Spanish are not convincing to her. Furthermore, Parker believes that the claims made by the demonstrators are “bogus claims draped in the garb of the civil-rights movement”. She does not believe this a civil rights issue, but more of a legal or moral issue. One of the few facts Parker used to support her argument was a survey asking Latino families if they would come to the United States. Almost half of the surveyed people agreed they would move while a fifth said they would move illegally.
The author of the article denies the existence of a general obligation to obey the law with rebuttals to counter objections. He starts with the paradox of the just government. It is very confusing if there is an obligation to obey the law of a just state or if the laws of a government are moral when there is a moral obligation to follow them. However, moral obligation is needed to prove that a law is a relatively just law. This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law.
Human morality is grounded on the society in which an individual is part of; this idea is employed from cultural relativism, a theory that implements the idea that there is no right or wrong. In this, various standards, morals and behaviours in societies should be taken into thought. This theory is built around concepts that other cultures may not define the right or wrong for every culture, however beliefs and behaviours must be appraised as right or wrong on every cultures degree, in other words what is considered immoral or moral is culture-specific. It is valid to say that as cultural relativism is observed, the platform of the theory must be understood- the observation of moral codes- understanding that cultural relativism hypothesised that there is no such thing as universal truths and ethics, and that since there is no widespread standard of morality the practices of another societies customs may not be judged by anyone else.
For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
“Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people’s adherence to and participation in different ways of life” (pg. 176). One culture should not be considered more moral than another, as well not to considered one correct or right over another one. This is almost similar to moral relativism, in which what is morally
Although cultures throughout the world are distinct from one another, along with their own unique customs, there are set moral rules that every culture follows which plays a big role, in order for society to continue forward. Cultures are very different as described by James Rachels in “Morality Is Not Relative”. Cultural Relativism means that there are no set moral codes due to the fact that distinct cultures have distinct ideas when it comes to morals. For example, Rachel's supports his argument, by using multiple ways different people lived. Rachel’s points out a rarely discussed situation about Eskimos practicing infanticide.
Rule utilitarianism is more concerned with fairness and the law. The ultimate goal is to still satisfy and benefit the most people, but only through the most just and fairest means possible. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. The Deontiological ethical theory is that of duty, coming from the Greek word 'deon '.
Cultural norms provide a backbone of guidance for people in the society to know what is morally correct and morally wrong. These norms are formed through trial and error and they are generalized towards what is morally correct in various situations that occur in society. I believe that we do not have to ALWAYS follow these norms and “ride the wave”. In a situation, I strongly believe that although yes, norms do still matter and may still make sense, it should not always dictate what is realistically correct in a situation. Are there moments when you think your personal values contradict cultural norms?
Our society has always encouraged the progression of knowledge with societal peace. Ethical stances on such material should not be formed by the mere existence of its controversy, but rather through individual study and personal conclusion as a person himself is a true judge. Ensuring prompt and effective investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and ensuring that bias motives are taken into consideration and throughout criminal proceedings. It is advisable in this type of situation that a person should use his own intellect and take his own decision whatever he finds right. Individual decisions are important because a society is made only by a group of these individual.
In addition, the people emotions mostly triggers a person’s senses into doing helping others ethically indirectly or directly. If the United States did establish ethically responsibility as a law then there would be many advantages and disadvantages. The relationship between a nation’s legal system helps people realize that there are governments order and nothing is given in return of committing an an act that is ethically
Sandel has two positions on justice and the common good, one is relativist position and one is not. The relativist view is “don’t judge them by some outside view. But instead conceive justice as a matter of being faithful to the shared understandings of a particular tradition (8:05).” Sandel believes the problem with this view is it makes justices seam holy conventional. America is made up of many different cultures and religions therefore this view will cause controversial issues.
You can see, ethics only show what should be done. Therefore, unlike law, ethics cannot be compelled and hence they cannot be enforced. They need not be universal too. This is mainly because ethics are created by a society. What is accepted in one society as good behavior may not be considered with such value in another.