He believes that morality of individuals not make something actually moral. He is with moral nihilism but against moral relativism. There is nothing in principle objectionable that morality is true. Humans make up their own moral facts and believe them whereas there is nothing morally correct. A third moral nihilist argues that there is nothing in principle objectionable about neither moral nihilism or moral relativism.
This theory is one where the right moral action is based on the one that brings about the most favorable results for everyone. In addition, with this theory rules are irrelevant and moral choices are not made by an individual adhering to any set guidelines or morals. For example, one day it may be a good action or choice to tell a lie in a certain situation, but the next it may be a wrong action or choice to tell a lie depending on the circumstances. (Vaughn, 2010, pg.
Ethical Egoism and Ethical Subjectivism are two ethical standpoints as explained in the book “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by James Rachels. Rachels (2014) claims that “Ethical Egoism is the doctrine that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively” (James Rachels, 2014. ). And He goes on to explain the moral ideas of ethical egoism by comparing it to psychological egoism. He says that psychological egoism makes a claim about human nature, or about the way things are, however, ethical egoism is about morality, or about the way things should be.
Proponents of this theory do not rely on a set of moral principles to determine how they should think or act. They also argue that; subjective individuals do not have the right to criticize or object to their actions; however, some find it possible to disagree (“Morality and Moral Theories”). The second theory, Ethical Egoism states that “right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest; also, that it is immoral to act contrary to your own self-interest” (“Morality and Moral Theories”). Proponents of this theory supports actions that maximizes self-interest. They claim that everyone is selfish because of human nature, which is a week point for this theory; given that morality encourages people to consider the interest and wellbeing of others.
The very meaning of being an other person is "the one to whom I am responsible." To counter my argument, Levinas defined being moral as a due to the responsibility we are tied with and due to the other person, that we are one and the same. But the theory is more directed and rooted between two persons, and derived from the theory of Ethical egoism. If we put the basis of morality in a larger group of individuals, and still apply the same premises, conflicts between what is morally right for the other maybe wrong for another. In Utilitarianism the standard of morality is set on the basis of what is good for most and not just for one person.
So when can we say that morality is present or when ethics are present? Morality is present when we believe that the things that we do is right or wrong while ethics are present when our own society tells us that what we are doing is right or wrong. Where does morality and ethics belong? Morality comes from ourselves
It speaks of a system of behaviour in regards to standards of right or wrong behaviour. The word carries the concepts of moral standards, with regard to behaviour; moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and goodness. Morality has become a complicated issue in the multi-cultural world we live in today. In my opinion, morality is an integral part of law or of legal development, which morality is secreted in the interstices of the legal system, and to that extent is
In Lesson two the author discusses ideas and theories of morality from a comprehensive perspective. This chapter addresses consequentialist, which is those who are concerned with consequences, and non-consequentialist which are those that have no regard to consequences which are major viewpoints when it comes to ethics. How a person views possible consequences helps them decide what actions to take. Keeping this in mind people regardless make moral decisions based off their own personal interests whether it be for benefit of oneself or benefit for all. The two ideas from this chapter that caught my interest are the relationship between Ethical egoism and utilitarianism.
“Cultural relativism asserts that the beliefs and practices of human beings are best understood by grasping them in relation to the cultural context in which they occur”. Based on this interpretation of morality, each society or culture has its own set of distinct moral codes and standards that are exclusive its inhabitants. Although the standards of morality differ from culture to culture, within the group there are strong expectations and codes of conduct that must be adhered to. Without universal adherence to the group’s codes and standards, there would be no cohesiveness and calamity would follow. External values and moral standards are limited in their application and understanding of morals since everything hinges on culture.
In each culture there are moral values which may not be considered the same for other cultures. Such differences may suggest that morality is only a question of cultural taste and that there are no universal moral principles, which brings us to the important ethical concept of "ethical relativism". Cultural relativism is the theory that morality is relative to the norms of its culture. Whether an action is good or bad depends on the moral standards that are practical in this society. An action that is morally right in one society may not be in another.