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.
In the first approach, it describes a conduct, which conforms to an established rule of conduct that also means a set of rules or laws. This being said, justice denotes, a moral disposition, which makes a man to things, which are just. It is mainly an application of certain rules, which is called virtue of righteousness or of moral justice. It is a virtue, which is applied over others, and the whole of virtue needs to be employed and not a part of it. He believed in the importance of teleology, which is the study of ends, and all other things being claimed is considered as ends.
Free will was not created for that sole purpose but Nietzsche's belief is true. Free will allows people to make their own moral decisions based on what they believe. 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
Moral subjectivism assumes that no one can be wrong regarding his or her moral views. If the individual is that the basis of moral truth, then none folks would possibly ever be mistaken in our moral opinions, for no matter we have a tendency to tend to believe ought to be true. Clearly, ethical subjectivism might be a shallow and incoherent approach to moral values. Given the importance of morality, no one can afford to settle for deficient ideas regarding it. Cultural relativism: Cultural relativism is seen that each one beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual among his own social context.
The reasoning behind the moral value it only suffices if you choose to accept that reasoning. Moral subjectivism does not entail a lack of adherence to moral law. It only changes the reasons for adhering to moral law, and how an individual views moral judgments, i.e., opinion rather than truth.
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
Law is not a necessary attribute of morality, morality comes before law and law is a threatening penalty of not following morality to a certain degree. In an environment without laws would every person still proceed to act morally right? Without laws people’s moralities
The statement implies that people tend to ask only non-neutral questions which is subjective and it is impossible for people to ask non-neutral questions which is objective. Initially, this view seems apparently reasonable as each individual has their own points of view on the same topic and see and interpret things differently, can there be a question that is not bias? In order to understand this claim, the terms with in the claim must first be understood. What is neutral question? Generally, neutral question means that the question is unbiased and does not take any of the sides of the issue but the exceptions should be existed.
These rights are natural because human nature being there primary source of evolution. • Violation of human rights by the state The concept of AFSPA, can be highly refuted by this school of thought. As according to them, the man made laws can be called as just and fair, only if theyare subjected to objective moral principles, and they does not violate the natural rights of the individuals, on whom they are imposed. The state by enacting AFSPA, to attain national integrity and to fulfill the rhetoric of nationalism, tries to violate those basic human rights of the individuals, which are conferred to them by an eternal authority, which prohibits the state from violate them. The provisions of AFSPA, such as section 4(a), gives the officer in charge, a power to arrest anyone, with minor suspicion of him possessing fire arms, and anyone who is part of an assembly of more than 5 people, and even kill them , if they according to that officer are trying to abscond.
Second, they are embodied in nature itself, which means moral laws in nature. Lastly, the question of whether or not there are any human beings around to perceive and appreciate it. Thus, it could be said that there is no prescribe ways to define what values were as in the sense that it depends on one's perception or nature itself. However, as according