One of the biggest philosophical debates is whether morals are objective or subjective. When debating the two, it becomes clear that morals are a mix of both subjectivity and objectivity. There are a few morals that are objective, such as don’t kill and innocent person for no reason, but most morals are subjective to the situation they take place in. For example, it usually is not okay to kill another person, however, if someone does it to save their own life it becomes acceptable. Many perspectives of ethical theory do not take this mix into consideration and state that morals are either completely subjective or objective.
To do anything that goes against your morality would leave anyone pondering what the 'right decision ' really is. In most cases, there is never truly a universal 'right answer ' and because of this, an individual 's feelings should not be "[regarded as] objects of utilitarian value" (Williams, p.490). What this means is that no one should think of anyone 's emotions as invalid due to a decrease in happiness amongst all people. What may seem to be obviously correct to one, can easily be seen as wrong, or simply the lesser of two evils to another. For utilitarianism to assume that we should all comply to actions that go against our morality, solely because of maximum happiness to those around you, often jeopardizes ones '
How can moral judgement be passed if the concept (a subjective construct) responsibility and morality is detached from any objectivity? Furthermore, objectivity cannot be restricted by binaries such as good and evil. With that said, it seems life negating to pass moral judgement on a peer based on a code of morals without an objective foot to stand on. Nietzsche is also concerned with another leg of the traditional concept of responsibility: Causality. Nietzsche maintains that: Firstly, free will and unfree will does not exist and an actor does not act out of free will.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg.
The truth may hurt, but it’s still the truth can cannot be argued with, even if there are people who don’t like it. People aren’t going to be happy all the time. What is more important safety or happiness? Machiavelli more concerned with the life of a city than the people within. If citizens are unhappy but they are protected from harm, than that is more important.
These effects include moral choices. Compatibilists think that determinism is actually required to act freely, because if there were no causes and effects for a person to be connected to, their actions would become random, chaotic, and unpredictable and therefore their actions are not truly “free” since such actions are uncaused. Question 2 Incompatibilists believe that free will and determinism are incompatible. There are two incompatibilist positions: nihilism and libertarianism. Nihilists believe that if determinism is true, there is no free will.
CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform. Instead of this, it can tells us which maxims to fit acting morally. CI applies a test on maxims to conduct a necessary condition of their acceptability. This means that when we decide how to act in a given situation and choose the action (with our free, autonomous will), we would want everyone else to act just as we did. The autonomy of this decision leads to personal responsibility, and excludes any other reason to act that was not from our own free will.
Arguably, conformity and removal of liberty transforms a possible Utopia into a dystopia many of us fear. Whether a Utopia can exist under a different rule is subject to evidence that does not exist therefore it is only possible to exemplify the failure the totalitarian rule brought upon the community of The Giver. Is a totalitarian rule the key to utopian success? Totalitarianism is not the key to a Utopia not simply because it is an unjustifiable method but mainly due to the improbability of a Utopia that works in accordance to human nature. By eliminating as much personal variation in favor of sameness and predictability, the community of The Giver has rejected the utopian societal possibilities where people are free to progress society.
Singer says that the help being offered by the individuals and by the government is nowhere near the kind of help that the situation requires to be resolved. He argues that people especially those living an affluent lifestyle need to alter their entire perception of morality. He puts forward the assumption he relies on in order to continue with his argument (automatically considering that assumption to be true): death and suffering due to the lack of basic necessities of life are bad. Singer then states the principle which is if we can prevent terrible occurrences without sacrificing something of equal moral significance then we should go ahead and do so; this principle plays a major role in his argument. Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance.
Following from this, God can still be omniscient (God knows that there is evil in the world), omnipotent (God has the ability to stop evil) and omnibenevolent (God does not want evil to exist, but ultimately allows it for our ability to have free-will). The free-will defense is successful as it accounts for moral evil such as slavery, war, torture, genocides, etc., and since we have free-will and we are ultimately responsible for our actions, whether they are good or evil, there is no logical reason to blame God for the actions of