Moral Relativism Analysis

You can infer from her essay that she does not agree with this lifestyle. In her essay she states, “Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.” This is in fact a true statement. By becoming morally agnostic its like you don't care. you in other words have no morals. Ayn Rand seems to agree that this is a bad

Religion and morality have been closely intertwined dating back to the beginning of the Abrahamic faiths and Greek philosophy. The term moral has many meanings which come from the Latin word mos. It can be defined as a code of conduct by a society or in this case a religion. In terms of defining religion, it can be understood as a system of belief and practice that relates to a being or such beings. This essay endeavours to explore the problematic issues that arise between religion and morality.

As so far whatever and in whichever religion, culture, the tradition we believe is true. In every situation, we all look different way, and the knowledge of being right or wrong never applies to moral beliefs. Cultural moral relativism, it varies from culture to culture, all cultures are equally important, and there is not a single culture which whom we can say is better than any other. And it depends on that finally there is no standard of good or bad. So, every decision regarding right and wrong is the result of society.

Rawl describe the veil of ignorance as a tool that aims to allow people only to know how a general society works, and helps people choose rational principles of justice based on universal morals. Rawls theorized that the veil of ignorance allows people to erase their bias and come to unanimous agreements because no one is in a position to make any principles of justice tailored to the natural lottery of life, in other words the only way one can determine if a choice, or action is moral is if they don’t know how it affect them. Rawls theory of justice introduces two principles which his theory is dependent on. The first principle states: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 60). The main concept Rawls conveys is that behind the veil of ignorance the individual does not know there advantage so, that person will try to strive towards

Jean Racine uses his play, Phaedra, as an exploration of pure virtue and finds that all people are morally grey, meaning that no one is altogether virtuous or sinful. Through the absence of purely right and purely wrong characters, Racine is able to create a play about virtue rather than a play concerned with people, and whether or not they, on individual levels, are virtuous. This is not to say that he is arguing either way about the morality of the specific deeds committed in the play, but the opposite. Phaedra is concerned with the idea of virtue itself rather than with the characters and the specific virtuous or sinful deeds they perform. Racine makes a few key changes to the story of Phaedra found in classical tragedy.

Intuition happens automatic, instant, subconscious and hardly takes any effort, so that actions that follow are without reason or thought. Contrastingly, reflection does require active thought and means weighing the pros and cons of every possible outcome. As thoughts rely on personality and other external factors, it can be stated this is biased and susceptible for contamination. Thus, we have to assume actions without thought come from our deepest inner self and can be considered as basic human nature (Ward, 2012). We can therefore conclude that whatever action follows from intuition — selfishness or collaboration — will be intuitive and most likely most aligned with basic human

One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history. Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie.

Society and respect are hooked together. A society cannot function without respect because of the following reasons. Respect is an offspring of altruism, a biological layer on the basis of society. Secondly, because it is the moral foundation of a human society. Above all, without respect, progress in a society is bound to hinder.

The assumption that a ‘good’ person should be formed from one mould is challenged by Friedrich Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that it is absurd that there is only one kind of human goodness. It is naive to suggest that we all ought to have the same virtues and vices considering we are all nurtured in different ways, therefore, we have our own understandings of what is deemed

Ethics (Moral Philosophy) Theories have long supported the notion about moral philosophy. Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts between the connection of right and wrong conduct. Moral philosophy already reigned from the ancient period yet still managed to retain its existence from the 20th century (contemporary period). It’s not really impossible for this theme to exist for such a long time for it actually talks about the standards on which human deeds can be judged from either right or wrong. In the Ancient Greek period, the philosophers thought on the right way to live their lives.