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.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg.
Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist, argues that morality is relative and based on one's culture or society. What could be morally acceptable in one culture is not necessarily acceptable in another culture. She believes that “the most spectacular illustrations of the extent to which normality may be culturally defined are those cultures where an abnormality of our culture is the cornerstone” (134). James Rachels, a philosopher, argues that Benedict’s argument is fallible. The conclusion of her argument does not follow from the premises.
If a value cannot be implemented by rational means, it is, devoid of ethical appeal. I find this objection sound in theory but desolate in practicality because authenticity is about stepping outside one’s own bubble, engage with spontaneity and seek out an active, boundless life. The ethical appeal of authenticity is a minor hiccup; in fact, I think it suppresses the pursuit of authenticity. Since the concern is more about authenticity and society, not authenticity and the individual, it places limitations and constraints similar to those in an inauthentic life.
Durkheim believed that social facts were things “sui generis”. They are “the effect or creation of human activities, actions or agency but they are not intended; they are not the product of conscious intentions - they are the unanticipated consequence of human behavior/agency.” Social facts are extrenal not internal because they are things that are outside of us, not inside the human body. It is the way we act and think. Therefore, social facts are not tangebale items or located in our DNA. Social facts have the ability to change our beliefs and consciousness.
Self reliance is a concept that has independence as its core value. Kim and Isma’il (2013) defined self-reliance as the ability to think and act without the help or influence of others. It is the ability that an individual develops that will enable him or her to make personal decisions. Self reliance is opposed to being dependent on other individuals or other social institutions for assistance that could be personal in nature. Idiaghe (2011) opined that an individual that is self reliant will rely on his or her own abilities and efforts, which connotes that such an individual is independent.
Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated. Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
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
Do not base it on society norms, but instead base it on personal morals or believes. We should be an individual when we know that what society is trying to make us conform to is bad. Does it go against any of our personal morals? Do not be a tool
The purpose was to determine if societal bias affected their sensitivity of the violence differently based on the dynamic. Although the hypothesis indicated that the same-sex exchange would be less serious, the result was that the advocates viewed it similarly. The difference was in their assurance as it relates to the identifications of the batterer and victim, and the recommendation to leave the relationship. According to Brown and Groscup (2009), cultural competency training is imperative as it relates to same-sex dynamics and a lack of adequate training would result in inappropriate care and potential re-victimization. Training provides a foundation and precedence for best-practice.