Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In other words, if a person acts only out of duty and not self-interest, their action is morally justifiable regardless of what the consequence may be. As you can see, this belief is different from the utilitarian who mainly focuses on the end result of an act or the consequences of the
However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something. For example, If Kant’s theory were true, it would mean that it would be very difficult to be a good person because utilitarianism does not allow for acts that go above duty. First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth.
My purpose in this essay is to explain and evaluate ethical relativism. Ethical relativism states that there are no moral absolutes, therefore, no moral right or wrong. While this theory does have many advantages to it, such that it can promote acceptance and equality, I have to disagree with this theory. I believe there has to be some moral truths in order for society to not become chaotic. Ethical relativism, or also known as moral relativism, denies that moral values and norms are objective or universal and declares that there are no absolute truths.
It is important to note that there is no set formula in making moral decisions because it is a process that is determined by set rules. Though intuitions or acting on hunches may be important in the moral decision making but it is more than a combination of these factors. In order to make sound moral decisions, it is important to clearly understand the facts about a situation and make careful consideration on moral values or principles relevant with the situation at hand. Therefore, morality emanates from the sense of doing good because it cannot be legislated and laws cannot change a man’s heart though they are good in restraining the
Something happens – injustice, a threat to a nation or a criminal act. Why is it that some people take actions against the so-called “wrongdoers” while some others remain silent? Who or what determines whether something is an “ethical” decision/action? I believe these questions eventually boil down to ethical dilemmas, which are a conflict between moral imperatives. According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective.
If we were to say that a custom was correct or not, it wouldn’t be true in terms of Cultural Relativism due to us using our own culture to judge and that doesn’t take into consideration of other cultures. Realizing that different cultures have different moral codes is respectful and allows people to potentially take in a new way of life. It is interesting to think that cultures could eventually adapt to having an overarching moral truth, because of living in a more globalized world. Building on the belief that different cultures have different moral codes, the moral code of a society determines what is right. This is also a key tenet of cultural
The denial of moral authority, asserts Hegel, need not entail extreme subjectivism. The right of the subjective will, this moral self-determination, is itself qualified by the right of the rational. ‘The right to recognise nothing that I do not perceive as rational is the highest right of the will.’ Rationality is a constraining frame which even my reflection in conscience must conform – the issue of conformity will re-appear . There surfaces an epistemological worry: whatever the phenomenological powers of my belief, they cannot guarantee its truth. Put simply, my reflection can get things wrong.
Morality, says the moral relativist, is constructed by individuals or societies: what is moral you might not be moral for me. In contrast, the claim of moral realism is that there are objective moral values which specify concepts like good and evil, right and wrong, and which transcend cultures and individuals. We can say that we act Morally or Ethically when we are in an emotional part. Because Morality is a good thing. Immorality is a bad thing.
Wood writes that in Korsgaard's argument the objective worth of humanity and of the moral law are created by human beings and are constituted by "an act or attitude of ours". [fn:103] In his reading of Korsgaard, the perspective of the individual agent is an amoral perspective. And the problem Wood points to is the problem that if the agent refuses to adopt the moral attitude or to construct the moral law, morality has no authority over him. The agent in this case would not be subject to the moral
Law is not a necessary attribute of morality, morality comes before law and law is a threatening penalty of not following morality to a certain degree. In an environment without laws would every person still proceed to act morally right? Without laws people’s moralities