In “A Refutation of Moral Relativism,” Peter Kreeft argues that there are no moral absolutes because of the different cultures. Kreeft presents the moral relativism argument in his first two premises, through modus tollens, that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree and that not everyone agrees. The conclusion that follows is that moral absolutism is false. Although many cultures practice different moral values, it does not mean that there is no absolute morally correct value. Kreeft argues in the first premise that if moral absolutism was true, then all would agree.
Religious ethics is a system that I believe would fall directly in the middle. I believe that under this ethical system, one could argue both ways on whether the death penalty is morally permissible. On one hand, we have the rule to treat others as you want to be treated, and other bible passages such as Exodus 21:23-25 which could be use to support the death penalty. While others could argue that interpretations could be wrong. What if it is not our job to carry out this penalty, and it is God’s job to do the judging and penalizing.
Ethics are the scaffold to human morality and the values of society. Diverse perspectives can affect ethical points of view on a variety of subjects, such as society’s values, religious values and the legislative system’s decision on said topic. Gender theory and the right to freedom of expression has become a particularly controversial topic in the discussion of ethics and sociology. While human rights activists and the United Nations support the freedom to express one’s sexuality as a human right, though some religions reject this in favour for their theistic values. Organisations that promote gender theory such as ‘Safe Schools’ have also been rejected by the conservative members of society.
As they were pieces of property in the army, many of the girls were demanded to do much worse of actions. In the article, “Social Issues: Child Soldiers,” written by Michelle Steel, it explains the actions that the girls were forced to do to keep the leader pleased. For example, Steel wrote, “Girls not only fight on the front lines but provide domestic labor and serve as ‘wives.’ From the age of 13 they may be given to boy soldiers or adult commanders. They have no choice: those who refuse are killed or raped.” (Michelle Steel para 8). As shown, Michelle makes a clear point and is very clear as to how child soldiers deserve amnesty, because not only were they were manipulated but they were basically given an ultimatum to perform certain behaviors to please the leaders and boys.
This theory acts under the assertion that individuals should only do things if they expect all individuals to make the same decision and perform the same action if presented with the same situation (Beauchamp & Kahn, 2014). Since either situation is morally wrong as they both will result in the loss of life, making a decision to change the course of the trolley would actually be more immoral because the individual would be consciously making the effort to change the trolley’s course. By taking no action they would not be responsible for the consequences of what happens, but by changing the trajectory of the trolley they would be acting against the principle of not killing an innocent person as they would have played a part in the individual’s
Ethical relativism denies there is a specific moral standard that continuously applies to all individuals irrespective of their environment or circumstances. Instead, it emphasizes there are countless moral decrees and ethics that differ through the dimensions of time, place and cultures. To summarize, all moral values are only opinions, all are equally valid and change as societies, and people evolve. Contradictory to the moral absolutism view, which stipulates absolutes govern specific actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, relativism refutes the existence of an immutable objective moral code relevant to all human beings. However, evidence supports the absolutism view of universally held beliefs of right and wrong.
Pakistan’s patriarchal society repeatedly condones discrimination against women mostly amongst the poor and uneducated rural families, says Dr. Farzana Bari, the Director of Gender Studies at Quaid-e-Azam University. She further elaborates that this mindset influence the police and judiciary; causing them to turn a blind eye to honor killings. According to her, "honor killings are a symptom of vigilante justice that occurs in an environment where the state is unable to enforce its writ." Pakistan is ranked among the most dangerous and unsafe countries for women after Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo according to a survey conducted by Thomson Reuters in 2011; mainly because of the prevalent cultural, tribal and religious customs that are harmful to women. Nearly 100 women and girls become the victim of honor killing mostly resulted from orders from panchayat (HRCP).
It sheds light on the reality that about millions of girls are deprived of education just because they are girls. Receiving education is every human being right then why do the girls have to fight to even get the basic education. The ad shows the cruel reality of the patriarchal society in
EMOTIONS AND REASONS Humans have loads of moral variations that needed to be explained. To explain this, for many years, people had two options: emotions and reasoning However saying that morality is based on reasoning alone is not easy as saying science is based on reasoning or observation. So, where does morality come from? Because of moral variations, saying that reasoning is the source of morality is odd. Having different cultures, beliefs and rituals affect morality.
The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.
Perhaps one may realize that this is a certain topic that they feel strongly about and strive to make a difference. For example, there are those uninformed in this world who unjustly depict all Muslims as being terrorists, just because those in ISIS are that religion, too. This stereotype is discriminatory and prejudicial because a religion doesn 't make a human being do terrible things. A religion does not turn a person evil, it is the person who chooses to commit those acts. It is up to me, and others who feel the same way, to uncover my voice to show that all religions should be treated equally.
All freedoms should have a restriction somewhere, and this limitation should happen when one breaks a law for the purpose of a religion. Americans should have their freedoms, but safety is even more important. Harming others for the purpose of a religion is a threat to society, and can bring down the nation. It is not fair for the purpose of people to break the law just because of a religious belief, while other people get punished for breaking the law. The first amendment is a controversial topic that still gets debated today.