For example, killing is bad, love is good, worship is honorable, etc. Moral relativism, on the other hand, takes into consideration the person(s) who define those standards; and their relative position in time. Moral relativism asserts that what we define to be “good” or “bad” is not absolute but rather (one might say) subjective. = =
He accepts that we may decide the culture is wrong about their use of terms, but it is difficult to deny the importance of “extension of our moral judgments” (258). I find that this plausible example limits the damage an amoralist counterargument could cause because it makes
Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time. For example, divorce was a morally wrong value.
According to Mill, “acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded, and exhorted, to act in a preferred matter. A moralist can sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action” (West). The moral value of an action can be based on what is called hedonism. This says the only thing can be good is pleasure or happiness. Utilitarianism shows how moral questions can have objectively true answers.
Mackie’s Arguments Against Ethical Objectivism According to the book The Fundamentals of Ethics, it is stated that ethical objectivism “is the view that moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true” (Shafer-Landau, p. 294). It is the belief that each individual or person has their own set of moral principles. J.L Mackie explains two arguments against ethical objectivism, which include the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. In addition he explains and defends his error theory.
Through the eyes of Kant, and Aristotle, a continent person is the next best to the, “morally ideal” one can achieve. On top of that each philosopher, agrees that one’s reasoning must be morally right in order to be a rational
In someone else 's culture cannibalism is an accepted action to preform and is also accepted not to perform making it morally optional. The criteria for the right and the good in a moral theory is one or more moral
Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.
Hume takes the belief of what would be considered moral sense theorists where we gain awareness of moral evil and good by experiencing the uneasiness of disapproval and the pleasure of approval when we think of a character trait or action from an unbiased point of view. Hume goes against what would be considered a rationalists point of view in regard to that although reason is the foundation to discover anything that is a concrete situation, or general social impact, reason alone is insufficient in its ability to yield a judgment that would be considered
Rule utilitarianism is a belief in which, an action is morally right, as long as it justified in accordance to a particular law. Utilitarianism is less complicated to understand (compared to other moral theories) because it consists of “doing whatever produces the best consequences” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics). Mill viewed the greatest happiness principle as the cornerstone of morals, he
Therefore, for Kant, it is tantamount that people are inherently valued, and that values can determine the validity of an act. Thus, the use of derogatory, exclusionary, binary, and phallocentric language is a manifestation of valuing people incorrectly and negating their dignity. It is the morally correct way to value a person when the intentions are authentic. As people who have dignity and view and define ourselves are moral, we must stop using these forms of language simply because it doesn’t respect the dignity of others. Although Kant and Mill are drastically different in their approaches, I believe, based on some of their core arguments that they would interpret society as having an ethical obligation to restructure the vernacular used in regards to
2. Explain your primary ethical perspectives. a. What are the habits that you attempt to live an uprightly good life and why do you think that these ways are the best ways? The customs that I attempt to
Aristotle, according to me, has a rather satisfactory counter-argument to Glaucon’s opinions in the Ring of Gyges Story. It is true that what is good for one might not be necessarily good for another and if doing something evil makes one feel good then that particular individual is essentially very immoral. An individual who is not as deep into immorality as this particular person would feel a level of guilt if they did something evil. Glaucon’s proposal that good people lack the good things evil behavior brings is, therefore, nullified.
Even though Kant makes some good points, I disagree with his notion of always
If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all. Lastly, even if the action is considered morally wrong and harms the future person, it is still morally better to choose this action as opposed to denying this future person the right to live. The choice you are worried about will not affect the existence of these future people, but rather, it will only benefit or damage them but not violate them existing. (Serada, class notes). As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices.