Because each person does not know what values and norms another person has, in order to keep oneself safe, it causes people to draw away from others. Another reason why I disagree with this theory is because it is self-contradictory by stating that two views can both be right. If it is true that nothing is right or wrong, then why believe this theory if there are no absolute truths? By stating that there are no objective truths, that is an objective
According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective. It depends solely on which imperatives you value most. Simply put, one decision may be unethical on the basis of the consequences of the decision (Consequentialists) but that same decision could be ethical based on the motives of making that decision (Deontologists).
The reasoning behind the moral value it only suffices if you choose to accept that reasoning. Moral subjectivism does not entail a lack of adherence to moral law. It only changes the reasons for adhering to moral law, and how an individual views moral judgments, i.e., opinion rather than truth.
Although this person would have to make a decision without being aware of his identity, this would apply to all. However, it seems that Rawls neglects the present pragmatic state of affairs. The concepts of fairness and equality in Rawls’ methodology would definitely be hard to refute, when being applied in an existent and factual original position. In this case we would have the scenario of never having inhabited a society before and we would be able to from something out of a clean slate, in which no one could possibly be disadvantaged. Rawls’ hypothetical scenario, however, is not factual, nor does it pose meaningful applicability to our present situation.
Finally I will make clear if the logical defect of CDA proves if the theory is false or not. The General idea of Moral Relativism is that the beliefs and/or activities of an individual, society, etc. are to be understood. As written in James Rachels book Elements of Moral Philosophy, he states, “Different societies have different moral codes”(p. 18) and that “if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.”(p.19) This shows that in the study of ethics, the study of moral relativism to be more specific, the idea of universal truth does not exist. That is to say what is perceived as “good” or “right” can vary form culture to culture, so there is no way to have one universal truth.
However, the fact that determinists also believe that there is no such things as human responsibility makes it difficult for us to accept. The logic may be adequate in the theory, yet it goes against the human disposition to assign blame. The next step would be to deny regret since the individual had no choice in doing what he did. The theory seems to have put the 'human' out of 'human action', leaving humans as some sort of pawns of destiny. Moreover, our 'actions' might also lack our 'doing something' since they are just results of conditions and events (Solomon, 2002).
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Regardless of the flaws in his model of knowledge, knowledge as an intellectual property is not practical. The significance of his knowledge seems minute as it feels unreal to a real and practical world which seeks practical knowledge. Knowledge needs to be able to be applied in order for it to be useful, as knowledge alone has no virtue. Knowledge must go beyond just merely being a physiological phenomenon, it must have a social, environmental, as well as an ethical context. Otherwise knowledge is self-indulgent and self-serving.
Dogmatist’s affirmations have within them absolute truth, but this truth cannot be proven. But if Dogmatism has not been successful thus far, a reason does not exist to eliminate the chance of it one day being successful . Is it not the Academics whom are those that perpetrate the fallacious act, deriving an impossible claim we cannot yet understand? Arguably it is commendable that the Dogmatist expends effort to find an unapologetic truth on the grounds of which mankind’s endeavor could possibly be based. Nevertheless, The Skeptic’s intuition is this target has not yet been achieved.
The con to the argument presented by supporters of shaming penalties is that though they give numerous points to support their arguments these points are not evidenced based. The pro of the argument presented by opponents of shaming penalties is that they spoke of restoration for offenders and not to label them which may ruin their lives. The con of the argument presented by opponents of shaming penalties is that they like the supporters of shaming penalties lack empirical evidence to support their argument. I however support the shaming penalties though there are not enough evidence to prove its efficacy neither are there enough evidence to prove it is ineffective. Shame and embarrass is not an emotion many want to experience and to avoid shame people will not commit criminal activity as they do not want to be humiliated.