I thought that this chapter was interesting because I think in a similar way. He believed that for one to be moral, they need to have an appropriate motive for undertaking a task. It cannot be based on selfish reasons and it does not have to appease the public. You do something because it is right. He also states that we often mistake ideas for our own because of conformity.
To begin with, I believe that all moral standards are flawed. Ethics and the moral standards related to them are the attempts of the flawed human species to reach and understand perfection. While I find the Rossian ethics’ tendency to accept human flaws and all that follows as an admirable trait, there are those that demand absolutes and perfection and will settle for nothing less. They, consequently, find Rossian ethics to be too loose to be permissible. There are also people that find the lax moral system of the prima facie principles to be too unaccountable.
He continues by pointing out that when an ethical man violates his own ethic, he feels not guilt but a sense of human failure. To some extent, when people stand up for their morals and ethics and it ends up not resulting in any positive effect, they tend to feel guilty and may end up conforming to any standards or codes set. Morals and ethics are very essential elements in our society, but the issues of personal morals and ethics creates a lot of controversies and conspiracy among various groups of people. If these controversies are still existing and are not being resolved, the question remains does one sacrifice his or her morals for the larger group? Or stand up for his or her
Indeed, moral progress or even moral change seems to be impossible for people adopting this kind of thinking which seems to infer the suspicious idea that the majority is always right (relatively to the culture). Why people who considered their rules of what is ethical and what is not as right would change them? One simple answer would be that they figured out that their rules were inappropriate. The problem is how would they consider that they were wrong if their unique standard is themselves? No way!
The argument from queerness puts it clear that if objective values exist, then they would be relations of a very strange sort and of which if we are aware of them there would be some special faculty of intuition or moral perception which will be totally different from how we know everything else. According to Mackie (653), although intuition has long been out of favor, it is more important to note that the objectivist view of values commits fully to the central thesis of intuitionism. Despite the fact that people have believed that moral problems can be solved or moral judgments can be made by just sitting and having an ethical intuition is simply a travesty of actual moral thinking. This being a real complex process requires some inputs of the distinctive sort which are either form of arguments or premises or both. One way to bring out this queerness is to have a look at Plato’s Forms that gives a dramatic picture of what objective values would be and also the argument of Hume on reason referring it to a stage of all sorts of knowing and also reasoning.
For an example, rather than believing that a person is bad, someone can believe that a person is trusted. Descartes did not truly believe that the information that we receive through our senses is exactly correct. We know that some of our experiences are incorrect only because we are able to know some of them are correct, and for that we have to depend on other. Descartes uses the method of doubt to find true knowledge, but Hume for instance, had different methods what he thought about about how to find true knowledge which Descartes disagreed on. Rene Descartes, believes doubting everything is absolutely way to find true knowledge.
Divine command theory has many weaknesses. The weaknesses of this theory are best shown by Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, which poses a question. Are actions morally good because they are approved by God or the gods, or whether God or the gods approve of action because they are morally good? If someone believes that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God, then God could command us to do anything, and it would be right for us to do it. Whatever God commands becomes the principle of moral rightness.
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
It is mere posturing to say that you are for or against “relativism” unless you say what you mean by the term. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. Moral relativism has been identified with all the above positions; and no formula can capture all the ways the term is used by both its advocates and its critics. But it is possible to articulate a position that most who
However, even if the action can be said to be a moral good, that is not enough for a description. More evidence is required to identify the point of a specific thing. The act of justice must be connected to the behavior of human beings. Just because someone likes something, that does not qualify that specific thing or action to be morally good. If something is to be termed as good, then it has to cause a positive effect on someone’s life.
In society, people should be ethically responsible with helping people. People act ethically responsible when one is in need of assistance because they let their sympathetic feelings of compassion take over their intentions. Ethical responsibility is a duty or obligation to ensure the individual’s well-being through specific commitments; such as saving someone from a certain tragedy. One piece of evidence from the text that demonstrates the sudden acts of ethical responsibility is “Can the Law Make Us Be Decent” by Jay Sterling Silver. Though many may argue that Silver’s argument is invalid, most will agree that his argument is in fact agreeable.
Cathy’s may believe that his actions was virtuous, however; his comments and actions are in contrast to this ethical principle. Another ethical principle that can be applied to the case is the deontological theory of categorical imperative. Under this ethical principle Cathy could argue that he had a moral duty to state and follow the laws that are given from God asserting that we are bringing God’s judgement on ourselves when we try to redefine the definition of marriage. Also under this principle it is the responsibility of the business to do the greatest good for its stakeholders in general. When Cathy stated his stance against same-sex marriage he was not thinking of his customers or the employees of the organization.
Hick, however, might relate higher morality back to the hedonistic world mentioned in the argument above. There is a reason for our world to have suffering since it is built into the structure of the world. That reason, Hick argues, is for “soul-making”, or character building (129). Without having some suffering, then there would be no characters, such as courage. The higher morality of God relates back to that because He has a legitimacy for that suffering.