that values differ with cultures.” Due to the effect of changing moral values, one cannot deny the value that another believes to be true. As stated before, the culture that allows people to commit child scarification believes it to be a morally good thing since it serves as a form of faith to God. Although the practice may sound morally wrong for another culture, denying one’s culture only perceives that the other culture is morally right. Also if one does not abide by their value, then one will feel as if they feel they are committing a wrong act. Values are changing, not only through cultures, but also in time.
Ayn Rand presents an argument against individual rights in her essay, Man’s Rights. She believes that these rights do not actually exist outside of the right to life and the right to property; or less specifically, the right to action. Many critics see flaws in her argument however, finding flaws in her reasoning. Rand attempts to argue that egoism and rights entail each other. Egoism being the theory that believes that selfishness is the foundation of morality.
The philosopher Ayn Rand believed that an individual’s life is of the utmost importance, as is her well-being. She knew that altruistic ethics require individuals to sacrifice their own wellbeing and lives for the sake of others. With ethical egoism, and will value their own wellbeing above all others. So, she was for ethical egoism. Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others.
A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good. A consequentialist looks at the pros and cons of a situation and then takes action. Although consequentialists and utilitarian’s have some differences, when talking about savior siblings their ethics line up, and can be used interchangeably. They would agree that a savior sibling would be morally permissible because it maximizes utility, the family and child are both happy because their child now has better chance at survival. No matter the metal/physical wellbeing of the child, as long as the act generates maximum pleasure.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
Taking someone without their consent is not right. The third consequence that Rachels proposes in the acceptance of cultural relativism is that all progress of morality could be questioned. According to Rachels, it does not seem like people disagree with the theory of cultural relativism as much as it would seem to be. The arguments he proposes as to why
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.
In order to promote human flourishing, I’d choose kindness as the most ideal universal value. Considering the fact that avoiding acts of violence which include theft, fighting, etc. fall under the ideology of being a ‘good person’, that would be considered a faultless personality. A non-violent person, along with being nice, patient and honest all gather together to assemble an exemplary
I agree with Blum’s proposal that in some sense moral excellence is not within our control, or within our will. It is the dimension of morality that is not up to us; some refer to it as moral luck. Part of the purpose of her paper was to provide the readers an appropriate understanding of the supreme value of moral excellence and why it is worthy of our highest admiration. I don’t believe she claims that we cannot reasonably aim to be like heroes or saints, but if one does aim to become a moral exemplar, one may not always succeed. In the chapter Emulating Moral Exemplars she states that while one might naturally be inclined to wish to become a moral exemplar, it is important to accept that for most persons this could not be accomplished.
First, the theory of ethical egoism. According to this theory, “actions are morally right because they maximize self-interest” (Farias, 2012, slide 6). When occupational therapists agree to perform duties or work on skills that are outside of the OT scope of services, they are working to promote their own self-interests and well-being. It feels good to help others and when we believe that we are going above and beyond to keep our clients happy, we are doing what is in our best interests. Since ethical egoism states that “it is individualistic, and the right thing to do is maximize one’s own utility,” then this dilemma holds true (Burgess-Jackson, 2013, p. 532).