There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.
The relativist’s objection Aristotle’s writings are the best prototype of virtue ethics. Contemporary virtue theories do not grasp nor represents the Aristotelian theory, because they think that it is impossible to escape the charge of relativism in virtue ethics. According to the relativist approach, ethical goodness is relative to each society depending on its traditions and practices. It is thought that virtue can only be outlined locally with reference to a single locale. Relativists reject the idea that there is a general rule, based on specific virtuous actions, that leads to the good life i.e. they reject that there is a single virtue (or norm of flourishing life) that is able to flourish the life of all human beings.
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.
One way of looking at this pond case is the self-referential altruism, on this view; your moral obligation to help a person varies directly with the degree of closeness of your social relationship or social connections to that person. You only feel moral obligations to close people, e.g. family members, friends, neighbors… We have different levels of moral responsibility to different people. Among humans, we owe least of all to distant needy strangers, with whom that person has no social relationship at all. Therefore you don’t have a significant amount of moral obligations to the staving children in the other parts of the world; there is no social relationship between you and that child.
According to skepticism, we can never reach a final decision regarding any issue because there will always be two opposing ideas that are equally compelling, in such a way that you cannot take anyone of them as a final answer. Sextus Empiricus, who is an ancient philosopher, explained in his book the principles of skepticism and the methods applied by a skeptic that will empower him to reach his ultimate goal which is mental tranquility. In this paper, I will discuss Sextus’s argument on how skepticism can bring peace to our life by shedding light on the steps that a skeptic uses while searching for knowledge. Moreover, I will be arguing against Sextus’s argument about assertions through presenting an argument from the Republic, in which it shows that assertions can lead us to mental tranquility.
Moreover, there is no universal truth in ethics, only various cultural codes instead. On the other point of view, it has been suggested that the world should derive an objective truth in every action. This essay will argue against the existence of objective truth in
A character named Jack in The Tortilla Curtain says “No education. No resources, no skills...” (Boyle 101). This shows how Jack assumes that all illegal immigrants have no education or skills, and this is far from the truth. By assuming that all illegal immigrants are the same low class with little education, Jack creates a wedge between himself and his race and the immigrants.
Other form is moral nihilism that asserts there is no permanence in morality and all moral values are artificial. Other forms of nihilism include epistemological, ontological and metaphysical which simply means that there is no actual existence of reality. This term also associates to explain the despair which become the general mood of people when there is breakdown between the individual and society through which self interest take place and the trust from norms, rules and laws breaks. The belief of rejection from the supreme authority is the main aspect of nihilism which mostly occurs in modern or postmodern age. Nihilism is very difficult to define however many philosophers describe it according to their own point of view, so that’s why it has multiple philosophical
Accidental knowledge also carries an ethical responsibly even the person has no intention to want to know about it. Accidental knowledge can happen anywhere and anytime and it will constantly test our ethical responsibility. There are many arguments about not helping the person that has a relationship with the accidental knowledge. The ethical responsibility of accidental knowledge can be differed by different perspectives. People who believe accidental knowledge carries an ethical responsibility says it is not moral if we don 't help others that is directly related to the accidental knowledge.
Moreover, no religion should allow a person being used or traded like property, and instead they should talk about the values of life. The first part of the quote states that no one amongst the two families is a coward. Well, then if someone is not a coward then that must mean they can stand up to and against anything and everything. Then if this is true, then why do the families own slaves if they claim they aren’t cowards. If they aren’t cowards, they should be able to do things by themselves without having someone else do it for them.
Being a Pagan, especially eclectic or solitary, often means not having a clearly marked path regarding right and wrong. Each individual must determine on their what is right and wrong. If I practice what the rede says and I do not harm any one or anything and make sure it is only for good than it should be okay to do. If I do something wrong but blame it on others that is not doing right and my ethics are not in order I do not understand what is right or wrong and I need to figure it out before I go futher.
You can see, ethics only show what should be done. Therefore, unlike law, ethics cannot be compelled and hence they cannot be enforced. They need not be universal too. This is mainly because ethics are created by a society. What is accepted in one society as good behavior may not be considered with such value in another.
Ethics are the difference between right or wrong, to follow laws, what humans are supposed to do, common sense, rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or culture. Charlie Gordon is a slow person that was experimented on to be more intelligent. Charlie Gordons doctors acted ethically when they performed surgery on him to make him smart. The doctors had all medical indications and agreed to do the operation (Siegler). Some say Charlies doctors did not act ethically when they did the operation on him because its not natural for humans to do that.
In the article “God and Morality” by Caroline Wilkerson, Wilkerson questions whether or not one’s ethics are independent of religion, pondering if it is just a man man-made concept focused on goals like survival and reproduction. Wilkerson attempts to explain that the moral codes that a particular religious god encourages others to follow may be in fact “arbitrary” based on her reading of Plato’s dialog Euthyphro. In the end, she concludes by saying that even though a god’s moral code may be “erratic,” it is better to follow their moral code rather than following what society considers to be