Every society has its own unique cultures in which people will have different ideas of moral codes. The diversity of these cultures cannot be said to be correct or incorrect. Every society has independent standards of ethic within their society and these standards are culture-bound. Cultural Relativism has a perception in which rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely within the bounds of the culture. This theory opposes the belief in the objectivity of moral truth.
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.
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. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival.
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
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.
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
”(Lee, Pg.119) this one really proves something. That you it is wrong to just go and kill or discriminate against people for no reason, when they have not done anything to anyone. 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)
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. Polus does not answer.
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.
This paper will attempt to summarize and explain the essay How to Argue about Disagreement: Evaluative Diversity and Moral Realism by John M. Doris and Alexandra Plakias. They claim that moral realism has a problem with its assertion that all disagreement is superficial, and would not persist under ideal conditions. They cite an experiment by Nisbett and Cohen in 1996 where there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between northern and southern white American men surrounding acceptable violence. Moral realism is the philosophical idea that morality is based in objective fact.
Tristan Courtney AP Lang Mr. Sontum 2/19/15 Apology of Socrates Rhetorical Analysis The Apology of Socrates has many rhetorical devices and he uses each of them to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos. He uses these to defend himself against the ridiculous accusation of not believing in the gods recognized by the state and also of corrupting the youth in Athens, and also to prove that their acquittal or absolution does nothing to him.
According to Hills (1980), the differences between the absolutist and the relativist views of deviance are vast with very few points in agreement. The absolutist perspective, shared by the majority, suggests deviance is a black-or-white, cut-and-dried definition which permeates the entire being of a person and allows for no mobility out of the deviant status; whereas, the relativist perspective, shared by many sociologists, communicates a shades-of-grey, humanity exposing explanation of deviance and allows for a multi-faceted look at individual categories of deviance in relation to personality (Hills, 1980). Deviance by definition is behavior based on a specific set of values; however, the difference in perspectives reveals the heart of the subject. Basically, the absolutist argues deviance is a part of the person; conversely, the relativist assumes deviance is taught via the culture, society, or group they belong.