Perhaps, the main hoe wants to maintain a certain image, and that image involves being in a stable relationship. In this situation, the innocent significant other is only used as a tool to help the main hoe achieve the outward validation he or she wants (since the relationship itself is not the “end” for the main hoe). As for the pro-side hoe argument that used the Theory of Utilitarianism to argue that the existence of side-hoes is moral, there appeared to be some logical flaws. The main argument, that the existence of the side hoe increased the overall happiness of all involved may not have been valid. The conclusion that, “overall happiness was maximized” did not necessarily follow from the premises that the innocent significant other was kept in the dark, and that the main hoe and his side hoe were happy together.
The Enlightenment Philosophers had a direct impact on the American Revolution and French Revolution. These philosophers helped influence the creation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The Enlightenment was the source of all philosophers. The Enlightenment was a European movement in the 18th century where thinkers apply reason to all aspects of society. The philosophers that had the biggest impact on these documents were Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Beccaria, and Rousseau.
that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. 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.
There were many philosophers in the 17th and 18th century that influenced and inspired the founders of our country. For instance, John Locke believed that life, liberty, and property should be our natural rights as humans and if the government could not secure these rights then the people could get rid of them. That idea impacted Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. This was the perfect time to develop different theories and contradictions because this was right around the time of the printing press and protestant reformation where people started to question the catholic church. Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau impacted founders like George Washington and James Madison who have positively affected this country in many different ways.
Paul Bloom is a philosopher who has written empathy and whether or not it is a good guide in life. According to Bloom, empathy makes a poor guide. Rather than relying on empathy to be a guide, Bloom insists that there is a set of characteristics that allows one to do good and become a “good person.” These characteristics are compassion and kindness, intelligence, self-control, a sense of justice, and a healthy amount of anger. While most of his argument is agreeable, Bloom believes that there needs to be a distance between the caregiver and the receiver, which will be produced by compassion, kindness, and intelligence. This, however, is shown to be flawed in the text Benito Cereno, written by Herman Melville.
Swinburne states that humans were made by God with a predisposition to be moral and help out the natural world (181). Even though we have free-will, God persuades us to choose good more easily, as we can see the consequences of natural evils if we choose not to lend a hand. A theodicist thinks that we are influenced in that way because it would be wrong to be ignorant in occasions when the world needs as much aid as it can get (182). We would just be contributing to the wrongdoing, and would not be growing morally. This is one way God could be creating virtuous beings, while still these allowing these beings to have
Only various thoughts that lead to different opinions. However, the most plausible option is that humans are morally neutral. Human beings are both morally good and bad. The reason humans are not morally neutral is because we are born with a basic concept of good versus bad. However, the way we are taught affect our ideas of good and bad.
Henry Louis Mencken describes our conscience as “the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking”; however, this is not the case in reality. This idea implies the conscience acts only to help someone save face and protect his/her reputation; it stops us from doing what is wrong only to maintain one’s own image. Our conscience actually does this and more. Conscience stops us from doing bad not only to protect our image but also—to put it simply—just to stop us from doing what is wrong. Conscience is our moral compass that makes us do what is good simply because it is what we believe is right for us to do.
The moral arrogance involves the true belief that personal moral judgment is the only option related to the controversial issue even others consider different moral decisions or judgments to be accepted morally. It can be said that the morally arrogant people are found to be dismissive of the thoughts and concerned with self. The moral certainty is used for describing the firm belief on the basis of internal conviction. Such people believe that they are found to be correct in their beliefs to the extent that they do not have reservations related to the rightness of their beliefs. The moral arrogance along with the moral certainty reflects the assessment required in ethical practice.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.