The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical. The theory is consistent with either with the affirmation or with denial of theism and moral skepticism. Taking either positive or negative stand on metaethical theological voluntarism cannot prevent anyone from doing what is morally right. The principle is not for theist only, and or not for only moral non-skeptical, it is for all of us, let us utilizes it for the common good. It can be argued historically that moral concepts equal theological one.
The United States´ President Harry S. Truman authorized the launch of the atomic bombs on the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending with the life of almost 214.000 people, civilians mostly. However, it is analyzed the necessity of those actions starting of the hypothesis of what was right; therefore, a questionable point of view emerges. USA should not have launched atomic bombs because they caused an unnecessary damage, dead people, damage to the environment and diseases to the citizens.
It also states that ethics and the law typically go hand in hand, however it is not always the case, as the law must be based on ethical principles for it to be legitimate, and not only on their legal implementation by fear of being punished, ethical principles must take superiority when the law disagrees with ethics (Breit, 2007). Breit (2007) wrote that practitioners should choose the ethical choice rather than following the law, however the choices must be motivated by the right reasons, and the consequences of action must be well thought
Being virtuous, then, is doing something for no other reason than to be good. Choosing to be nice or do good things for others with the motivation to have them help you in some way later, have them like you more, or really any reasoning other than just wanting to do something nice and good for them for nothing in return is what constitutes a person as being non-virtuous. I think virtue ethics can stand on its own without supplementation, but it requires more thought and action on the individuals part than simply looking to a set of rules for all the
An ethical dilemma is a difficult situation that involves a conflict between values and has no distinct definite answer. An individual facing an ethical dilemma is usually confronted with various tough choices. The individual has to question how one should react towards that complex situation and thus, make an informed choice based on what one believe is right or wrong. Ethical dilemmas are often times very multifaceted and unpredictable. They possess two or more competing solutions that are morally correct, but acting on one would mean transgressing the others.
Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” Nuclear weapons (along with chemical and biological weapons) are called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Unlike conventional bombing – tactical bombing of weapon production factories in order to cripple the enemy – a nuclear weapon wipes out everything in its devastating path. So should all nuclear weapons be destroyed? Ethically speaking, absolutely. Nuclear weapons should
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of
It is unjust that anyone should die because they disagree with another’s political, religious or other views. Terrible events like the Holocaust and 9/11 could have been avoided if people stopped looking to extremism as the solution to all problems. When an idea had less pros than cons, it is only natural that it is discouraged. Extremism should only be resorted to in the most extreme situations that require it. So, go out and spread the message that there are other ways of achieving things than extremism.
If we judge Travis according to his intentions, we can determine that he was completely in the wrong to do such a thing. On the other hand though, the assassination was a failed attempt. If we judge him on the consequences of his actions, did he really do anything wrong? The consequences of his actions did not leading to anything bad in this scenario, no. This is an issue, so what is the use of judging an action?