People who believe in this theory do not have a relationship with God. Also they do not believe in afterlife, thus we do not have to answer for our actions. “There are no universal objective moral goods or moral evils”. I believe that this statement is false and as a civilize society there are objective moral goods or evils. For example when I was growing up, killing, stealing or lying were considered morally evils.
Again, Strawson clarifies the Basic Argument that moral responsibility is impossible, this time "in very loose- as it were conversational- terms"(219). In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us.
Aristotle’s concept of human flourishing and moral virtue is a viable alternative to other ethical theories, even though it is not a prescriptive for ethical decision making. To understand this concept, one must first understand that individuals have freedom of choice. Therefore this allows for a great diversity of life that is around. Allowing choices means that the human race is not all going to be the same following a deontological, or even a utilitarian way of life. There are a few different ethical ways of living life, although they do not allow for the freedom of the individual to learn through their own experiences, to experience life as they choose.
No matter how hard you try to generalize happiness it can never be generalized. Thematic clarity: The theme is pretty much clear i.e. happiness. Author has tried to make the readers understand that happiness cannot be generalized and cannot ne compared to that of other’s. Happiness of a person cannot be judged by others.
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. Additionally, true altruism still exists and all humans are not selfish. Thirdly, certain individuals agree that culture determines what actions are morally right or wrong; and are advocates of Cultural Relativism. Their actions are not guided by a list of moral rules or universal norms. A key flaw in this theory is that, it leaves no place for moral advancement since, individuals of dissimilar cultures are not encouraged to share their view concerning the
First and foremost, Levinas sees ethics as first philosophy, not metaphysics. He criticizes the ontological way of thinking, because it thinks in identification and thus, reduces the notion of Other to the ‘same’. Levinas’s ethics is not normative, i.e. it doesn’t tell people what they ought to do. This ethics is phenomenological and descriptive.
Korsgaard states that “the Kantian view is based on a pure moral right,” and that “you should run your life because it is your life.” Korsgaard also discusses that Kant wants us to treat each other equally, never “as a mere means,” meaning that a person should not treat someone as “a tool you may use to promote your own ends.” With this idea, it can be shown that humans need no outer influences to believe in to justify morality; there is no need for other reasoning supporting it. Kant and Korsgaard both support mortality, but never use religion or philosophical beliefs as a reason why we should support them. They merely state that we should have good morals. Once morality requires justification, it stops being moral and becomes a
Moral nihilism which is also called ethical nihilism is a myth way of saying that nothing in the world is based on something that is specifically right or definitely wrong. Basically speaking, a moral nihilist would infer from a murder as for any particular excuse, that the problem is not necessarily wrong or inherently the correct way to act as each individual sees morality in different points of views. It is a distinct from moral relativism, allowing humans relating similar opinions to one another making something correct/incorrect in a non-objective sense, but does not have any proof whatsoever that a statement is statically from truth-values. Moral relativism defers from moral nihilism. It is based on individuals relating similar standards
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.
However, this is not what virtue ethics would support. As a human being, a person has only one option – to be a human being, but he can choose who he wants to become. Here comes the next important point of virtue ethics – the intelligent life. “As a human being, his or her natural end is to live intelligently.” (White, 2015D, p. 2) Living intelligently means to be rational, honest and constantly flourishing. Also, it means to do good