While I think that people do actions in order to receive awards not everyone is seeking to be recognized. I agree when Rachels says that the best argument in establishing Ethical Egoism as a viable theory of morality is Thomas Hobbes principle that we should do unto others because if we do, others will more likely to do unto us (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 527). People should avoid harming others because we should care about the interests of other people for the very same reason we care about our own interests; for their needs and desires are comparable to our own (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 532).
In my opinion, happiness is such a natural feeling that it cannot be exactly defined, but only experienced, and therefore is different and personal for everyone. There are multiple definitions that vary from person to person. I disagreed with more than just the main points presented, but with the some of the evidence and how it was conveyed. The section about genetics while interesting, seemed too long and off topic from the main point of the excerpt which was to define happiness. Genetics do not define happiness, but explains the limits to a person’s happiness.
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
His conclusions lack good support: “Freewill defense places too much weight on freedom, and not enough weight on the lives and wellbeing of innocents” (4) Wrong, freedom is and it is absolute. “The freewill defense simply gets the moral facts wrong” (4). Again, freewill is just there, it exists and it is not supposed to get anything right or
““On the view of these philosophers, a life can be meaningful only if it can mean something to someone, and not just to someone, but to someone other than oneself and indeed someone of more intrinsic or ultimate value than oneself.” (The Meanings of Lives, page 13) Of course, not everyone is going to have the same values. However, in order to have a successful society, people must pursue values that are not only important to themselves, but will also benefit and impact others. I agree with this, however I believe it is important that they value benefit both the person and others. Doing something just for someone else all the time is not fair to the person doing the actions. They must live their life with things that are of value to them too.
Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1). Even judging by actions is not right because things can be meant to help, but can instead result in something going wrong. Something that one person sees as disastrous could be seen as good by another person based on what each person knows and the intention. Thus, judging by actions is still not an effective way to judge a person, one must only judge by what is unseen; personality, morals, and intentions. There are many places where one can see how judging based on appearance affects people.
Even though an individual may intend to do a good thing, someone may unintentionally come to harm. The unwavering issue with ethics is the inability to have them uniformly implemented. As long as there are differences in opinions there will always be conflict in the world, and the view of one’s ethics is truly in the eye of the
A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. 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
This seems to make sense, as if one is a moral person, there must be some aim of the morality. She continues this by saying “For surely he must want others to be happy. To deny this would be to deny that benevolence is a virtue-and who wants to deny that?” (47) By saying this, she says that benevolence, or caring about others’ welfare or happiness, is definitely a virtue. She then continues, “a benevolent person must often aim at the good of others and call it ‘a good thing’” (48). This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is.
By defending the weak, individuals are exercising their selflessness and common decency by serving the people to ensure basic human rights and civil liberties are preserved for all. That individual understands that protecting the weak may be one of the greatest values he, or she, posses. Newer generations have replaced protecting the weak with protecting themselves. While that is important, it may lead to selfishness. When associated with protecting the weak, protecting themselves should not always take precedence.