The two principles are principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. By following the Principle of Universalizability, you have to universalize the maxim. The universalized maxim would be, everyone always breaks the law when doing so it allows him/her to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of maximizing public safety. However, by universalizing the maxim we are specifically violating the first violation of categorical imperatives, which refers to violation by contradiction. Torture is against the law, therefore torturing the man would break the law.
Conventionalism claims our moral obligations and principles are derived from the “social norms” and what is right or wrong according to society. Conventionalists are obligated to know what society will approve and disapprove of, and act accordingly. Our actions are then essentially compared to the social norms and then deemed right or wrong. For example, in today’s society incest is considered wrong. It may or may not be right, but we jump to the conclusion that it is wrong because of what we were told and observed growing up.
So, by allowing everyone to follow their own moral code, it could lead to a chaotic society. If you are upset at someone, you can kill that person without any consequences because your moral code accepts murder. There is no real way to keep people safe in this type of society, and each person is responsible for protecting themselves. While ethical relativism can promote people coming together, it can also encourage people to stay away from one another. Because each person does not know what values and norms another person has, in order to keep oneself safe, it causes people to draw away from others.
It asserts that actions are determined as immoral or moral based on how society perceives and accepts those actions, which causes tolerance of all actions to be considered moral and accepted by society. In addition, it allows for tolerance of genocide and nuclear war as long as the culture considers these actions as morally acceptable. Ethical relativism entails the inter-cultural tolerance. Subjective Ethical Relativism (Subjectivism), is where right and wrong get their meaning from the individual only. As many students sometimes maintain, "Morality is in the eye of the beholder."
According to Rousseau, nature is man’s state before being influenced by outside forces. At the same time, he asserts: “If man is left… to his own notions and conduct, he would certainly turn out the most preposterous of human beings. The influence of prejudice, authority… would stifle nature in him and substitute nothing.” Humans in nature are good but when it comes to sharing goods with others, selfishness and egoism appear which creates the evil. While living in society, people observe what others have and they wish to own similar things, but if they don’t have the ability to possess those things, jealousy appears, and thus they seek bad ways like stealing, robbing, making crimes to achieve their wish. As we can see now, for example two developed countries fighting against each other for their own benefit, this is called selfishness.
But we also have to be careful not confuse 'ought ' and 'is '. People do behave immorally. But they should not. Everybody knows that - at least in their heart of hearts. That implies that immoral behavior is irrational or insincere or hypocritical or something.
Values are based in conformity and ones loyalty to group. Sin is a breach of the expectations of one's immediate social order. At this stage is retribution is collective, wherein individual vengeance is not allowed. Forgiving another person is preferable than that of revenge. Punishment is done to deter another person; failure to punish another for their sin is considered "unfair."
For this reason, he indicates that it is important to define the underlying exclusions of an individual that is considered mad and finding various ways to avoid the silence about the affected individuals by annihilating repression and domination of the forces that create such an impact. On the other hand, Derrida indicates that Foucault’s approach may not be the most significant since the author tends to use the language of reason yet it is the indicator that banished the approach to explain madness. For this reason, Derrida indicates that if silence of madness is crucial in the world, then there is a need to use various instruments that define its significance to the human race. In the same perspective, it is noted that the language of reason should explain unequivocally that madness is malfunction of an individual and the reason may be false. However, if the reason is false, the explanation may not rely on the language that explains the signs of madness and insanity.
“Evil is a choice and without God there will be no basis or morality” How do we define morality? Morality for me is being unselfish and humanitarianism. Having the ability to know and being able fulfill your responsibilities and duties in an ethical and equitable way. Morality requires self-assessment and self-realizations, in other words being moral means knowing your limitations – being able to determine what is right from wrong which can only be done by assessing your actions and gauging the result of it - if it has negative results which can cause sorrow or pain to someone, then it is wrong but if it has positive effects or results then it will be considered as morally right or ethical. Having or not having a concept of morality, you cannot deny the fact that every action has its corresponding consequences.
The fact that the person has breached a rule of law is thought to be crucial to justifying the outcome that the person should be sanctioned. Simmonds says that this ordinary understanding we have of the way law is invoked by judges to justify sanctions cannot be understood simply by reference to Hart’s idea of a master rule of recognition, which could be followed by officials for any reasons whatever. It would not be intelligible, Simmonds claims, for a judge to offer, as a justification for a sanction, the fact that a person has breached a rule, which is identified by a rule (the rule of recognition), which the judge follows purely for, say, selfish or malicious reasons. Rather, the practice of invoking the law as a justification for a sanction only makes sense if the status of a rule as one of law is thought by the person invoking it to have some moral significance. So, implicit in our ordinary understanding of law, according to Simmonds, is the idea that law has some special moral quality that could justify imposing sanctions on a citizen.