Contemporary virtue theory holds that criteria of ethical goodness are internal and different across societies, and therefore reject the concept of a single norm applied to all human beings. Supporters of this theory argue that there is no compatibility between basing the theory on virtues and defending the singleness of human good. If virtues differ through cultures, how can Aristotle argue that there is common human goodness? This argument deems the Aristotelian approach useless when proposing ideas of ethical progress, a conclusion quite
Causal relationships are discovered only when the categories apply to the experience. We have no way of causal relationships behind and draw conclusions out of the experience. Therefore, we cannot from the causal order of nature validly conclude about God, freedom, immortality of the soul, etc. Nature is quite impersonal and amoral, and I can be seen as the product of a creator (God), but we cannot confirm that so is (no experience of it). Therefore we are forced to look for moral area outside the areas of nature.
In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic´" (Huxley 237). According to Mond, in a programmed civilization, religion is hard to understand. Also, he says there is no need to bring heroism when in a way, everyone is the same. Religion then, has no value for civilization. On the other hand, John fights for the idea that God makes one abstain from pleasant vices, bear things patiently and do them with
In other words, it’s recognized but never has been carried out. • Society needs to try and realize the conception of distributive justice and the circumstances that are permitted (in the example given its related to common good) • Corresponding to Moral desert, under the
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
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.
Frankl argued that one would not be willing to live or die for the sake of one’s defence mechanisms, but countless people have done so for the sake of meaning, thus meaning can’t simply be a defence mechanism. (Man’s search for meaning- Frankl). Another critic is that, whilst logotherapy can be effective in enhancing the well-being of individuals from different cultures, its underlying focus is on the meaning, purpose and psychological well-being of the individual. This is an individualistic outlook, with emphasis on the individual, as opposed to collectivistic cultures emphasis on community and the person’s role in it (Cherry, 2017). In my opinion, this can be addressed by adapting logotherapy for collectivistic cultures.
On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably. The people Locke had in mind, were to voluntarily give up a small portion of their freedom and were not forced into the political covenant. In turn, they were not united as a society out of common fear, but out of a common understanding that they were the ones who granted the government
Martin rejects philosophy, proposing that they “work without theorizing” because “it’s the only thing that makes life bearable” (113). With no time or energy for idly speculating aspects of life they have no control over, the group focuses on the one thing in the world they can control: their own actions. Voltaire’s support of realism rings clear in the way his characters ultimately achieve happiness through ethical and practical
Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. Further he explained that neither alternative is true and therefore the Divine command theory is false. So is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in
Again, this argument provides no evidence to support the claims levied against the pro-life argument. Additionally, the argument fails to account for the emergence of a genetically complete organism, and fails to provide a point in the developmental cycle where non-life becomes life. In fact, should this reasoning hold true, it adds credence to the pro-life position, as either alternative—life beginning at conception, or life continuing at conception—results in the presence of life. In either event, why is this human life deemed less valuable than another human life? Why is he/she required to forfeit the fundamental rights attributed to all human beings?