Louis Pojman's 'Argument Against Moral Relativism'

This can be seen from the fact that people should respect and tolerate other’s culture since there is no universal truth that holds for all people. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate the logical way reasoning of cultural relativism and highlight the advantage of the cultural relativism

The Divine Command Theory The Divine Command Theory is an ethical theory that states that God decides what is morally right and what is morally wrong. The theory argues that to be morally good one must do what God says and abstain from doing what God forbids. The question that is going to be discussed in this essay is if The Divine Command Theory provides an acceptable account of what makes an action morally right and others morally wrong. In this essay I will argue against the previously mentioned statement using the following arguments: The inconsistency between theists, the dependence of morality on religion and finally, Euthyphro’s dilemma. One problem with the Divine Command Theory is that it assumes that all its followers agree on what

With Duclos returning to the beginning arguments and trying to make counter arguments, I feel is a major weakness for his argument. While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals.

If you push the fat man, the trolley will hit and kill one person saving five. This dilemma can be solved by applying the deontological and teleological principles to “The Fat Man and the Trolley Car” dilemma. Based on the principle of deontological ethics, taking action that has reprehensible effects killing another person whether it is right or wrong but, teleological ethics command that some choices cannot be justified by the effects. The principles of

Elijah disregards human lives by treating humans as a motivation for his own satisfaction which results in mental instability. This is seen when the squadron was short on food and Xavier asks Elijah if he is hungry. Elijah responds by saying, “I have found the one thing I am truly talented at and that is killing men. I do not need food when I have this.” (Boyden, 320). This quote signifies that Elijah views killing men as a sport rather than an assigned job.

One traditional moral problem regards the moral permissibility of self-harm, the ultimate case of which is suicide. Spinoza does not agree with most of the traditional religious reasons for treating suicide as a sin. God simply does not issue commandments in the way that a king issues commandments. Given this fact, Spinoza thinks, it makes little sense to try to explain moral claims like “Suicide is a sin” by appeal to such commandments. Although he disagrees with traditional reasons for taking suicide to be immoral, he nevertheless agrees that suicide is in fact immoral.

In Response to McGrath’s Dilemma Against Moral Inferentialism An influential argument for moral skepticism is the moral regress argument (Sayre-McCord 1996). Moral inferentialists, who think we do have genuine moral knowledge, argue against the moral regress argument by rejecting the picture of justification one finds in the moral regress argument. Sarah McGrath (2004), in order to make room for her non-inferential moral perception account of moral knowledge, presents a dilemma against moral inferentialism, the thesis that all of our moral knowledge of particular cases is inferential. In particular, she challenges the most compelling version of moral inferentialism, which I call moral bridge inferentialism. In this paper, I argue that both horns of McGrath’s apparent dilemma turn out to lack argumentative weight against the moral bridge inferentialist.

Prejean presents her case against capital punishment citing “killing is wrong, no matter who does it” and that personal responsibility is the only appropriate punishment for these “monsters” (Dead Man Walking). While Prejean argues this, Van Den Haag counters with “the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment” and “the punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risks” (Van Den Haag 3). But through

This last key point is about honesty and this quote is a good example, “Best way to clear the air is to have it all out in the open.”(Lee, Pg.366) To be honest with everyone is a good thing, it shows people that you're trustworthy and they do not have to worry about you hiding things about them. It makes you look like a good person and someone who should be respected. All these key points from the book To Kill a Mockingbird are a great life lesson and can make you a better person in

Polus denounces this instance, saying it is different. This shows that Polus does not even stick by his counter-argument that doing whatever is good for oneself is what matters. Polus then switches to this idea that “it is necessary for someone who acts in this manner to pay a penalty” which even more supports Socrates claim that it's better to suffer injustice than deal with the consequences of committing injustice. (470a4). When Socrates asks Polus if it is better to commit injustice acts of power like killing, driving human beings out and confiscating possessions rather than suffering injustices.

Whereas one cannot find justification in George’s actions, In contrast George reason would be the ten commandments it says thou shall not kill. Then again others may say they don’t believe in God. Second, George is not justified due to the Law. One example is that murder is murder and can’t be undone. Even though others may say they have an excuse for the murder.