Rachels And Benedict's Views On Morality

Why people who considered their rules of what is ethical and what is not as right would change them? One simple answer would be that they figured out that their rules were inappropriate. The problem is how would they consider that they were wrong if their unique standard is themselves? No way! Unless we consider meta-ethic relativist point of view who would not see any conflict between their beliefs and an internal relative trend of change inside this culture because they will not see it as positive or wrong, but only as a change.

Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth.

There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.

Machiavelli simply expressed that power and morality are independent of each other. When these two viewpoints come to collision, it depends on who faces the alternative. Moralists can recognize the superiority of the moral code over the competing value system while the ecclesiastic will not admit a rival to its religious code. Similarly, the statesman will be guided solely by the principle of his code whose end is different from other codes and whose means are therefore different, too. (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, p. 318) Machiavelli was particularly pessimistic.

A major objection Aristotle faces is the relativist view connected to virtues. 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

He wants us to not fall into the norms of society. So he wants us to find out how to become better by not falling into peer pressure. He wants us to move forwards strong in our beliefs and disbeliefs. He says that "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist. " When you fall into conformity it's where you believe those wrong things around you and not the things you know are right. "

Many different ideas have been given the name ‘relativism’, and the term has been used to ridicule all sorts of views (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones). It is mere posturing to say that you are for or against “relativism” unless you say what you mean by the term. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.

Kant’s first formulation of the CI is also named universalizability, all moral maxims must be universalizable. According to Kant, it is not rational to choose a world in which you cannot will the maxim of your action to be a universal law. This is where CI (moral maxims apply to everyone, for example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises) are different from merely hypothetical ones which command conditionally on your having a relevant desire, the example would be an ‘ought’ statement of the form, ‘if you want A, then you ought to do B’. This is a hypothetical imperative, such as ‘Jack sees a cake, Jack ought not to eat it, as it is a means to keep healthy’. Such thinking appeals to our rationality and can be found in every major world religion most typically summarized in ‘The Golden Rule’ – treat other people as you want to be treated.

Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist

Professor Victor J. Stenger pointed out the fact that religious codes and exemplars cannot literally be the origin of people's moral thoughts. These moral thoughts are remarkably similar in people with different religious concepts or without any such concepts. Even religious people's thoughts about morals are constrained by intuitions they share with other human beings, more than official codes and models. Religious nobles and preachers tell us that any universal moral standards can only come from one source - their particular God. Otherwise standards would be relative, depending on culture and differing across cultures and individuals.

C. S. Lewis presents remarkable ways that different topics and arguments can coincide with each other and make complete connections with the purpose of his book Mere Christianity. After reading Mere Christianity it became apparent that his use of rhetorical devices is unlike any other. He has the ability to portray his arguments in a way that his readers could understand. This quality is quite impressive and every writer, who is trying to persuade, can definitely look upon his work to see a glimpse of what great persuasive piece of writing looks like. SUMMARY