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.
Such is the case for Philosophy. From the Latin words phylos, defined as a love for something, and sophie, meaning wisdom, Philosophy is rooted in the love of wisdom, creating a direct connection between the two concepts. Thus, learning about the nature of wisdom can translate into deepening one’s understanding of philosophy, a truth emphasized in the Apology of Socrates and that which will always be relevant where there is a desire for education. At first read, the Apology of Socrates is a simple speech that serves its purpose poorly. Socrates was put on the stand to defend himself from the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth.
Part I – Sarah’s Argument The moral theory that I choose for Sarah is contractarianism. Contractarianism, which has its roots in Hobbes’ line of social contract thought, views morality as being based on contract or agreement. This moral theory states that people are self-interested, and f ollowers of this theory consider that moral norms are determined by a maximization of joint interest, and consent to the beliefs of the society. Contractarianism argues that people are motivated to accept morality because they are vulnerable to the depredations of others and because they are deemed to benefit from cooperating with others. In the said scenario, Sarah views acting morally as the basis for public acceptance in trying to fulfill the desires to
1 What is the moral of Plato’s story of the Ring of Gyges? Is he correct in his basic assumption? The moral of Plato’s story is that when a person has the opportunity to be unjust they will be unjust. If there were no laws people would act in unjust ways and I would tend to agree with this train of thought. I think that if people could get away with things such as stealing items they desire they really would.
In this essay, I explicate two models of moral judgment and the concept of victimless crimes, in order to understand the permissibility of Julie and Mark’s act. In doing so, I argue that their act was morally permissible. One model that explains an individual’s reaction to the incest in all innocence experiment is the social intuitionist model. In moral psychology, the social intuitionist model argues that intuitions are the embodiment of a particular culture. From this perspective, it is intuition, reason, social and cultural influences that produce moral judgments within an individual (Haidt, 2001,
This scenario is a moral obligation. In someone else 's culture cannibalism is an accepted action to preform and is also accepted not to perform making it morally optional. The criteria for the right and the good in a moral theory is one or more moral
When considering the metaethical status of moral claims, ethical objectivism and moral skepticism dominate the two sides of the debate. The ethical objectivist claims that moral features are an objective part of reality existing independently of humans, or human attitudes. In opposition, moral skeptics deny the overall objectivist claim, explaining morality through several different theories such as nihilism, relativism, and expressivism. A controversial feature of moral judgments is that they may be inherently motivational, and guide the actions of those who hold the moral judgment. Although controversial, the premise has been influential in guiding metaethical discussions.
The two moral reasonings are consequentialist and categorical. Consequentialist means the consequences that will result after whatever you do, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. Somethings are just morally wrong even if it brings good outcomes. According to Mill the principle of utility means realizing a consequence of something before you do it,whether your intentions are good or bad.
Hume takes the belief of what would be considered moral sense theorists where we gain awareness of moral evil and good by experiencing the uneasiness of disapproval and the pleasure of approval when we think of a character trait or action from an unbiased point of view. Hume goes against what would be considered a rationalists point of view in regard to that although reason is the foundation to discover anything that is a concrete situation, or general social impact, reason alone is insufficient in its ability to yield a judgment that would be considered
A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
This alludes to the notion that as beings designated personhood, we have dignity and self-worth that is intrinsic (Sandel, p. 98). Therefore, for Kant, it is tantamount that people are inherently valued, and that values can determine the validity of an act. Thus, the use of derogatory, exclusionary, binary, and phallocentric language is a manifestation of valuing people incorrectly and negating their dignity. It is the morally correct way to value a person when the intentions are authentic. As people who have dignity and view and define ourselves are moral, we must stop using these forms of language simply because it doesn’t respect the dignity of others.
The theory of right and wrong characteristics or good and bad behaviors is concerned with morality; its role can shape an individual’s personality which can affect his or her call of action. It is only natural that we should have some kind of sense of duty and physical forces from our experiences that make us have moral laws. It’s an aspect of humanity which helps them make rational decisions and it also serves as guidance for mere goodness. Our existence defines who we are as an individual because of our values that help us see past our wrongdoing and helps improve our future. This can be seen in Sophocles’ story of “Antigone,” Antigone’s character portrays a strong individual who is loyal and values her family more than the society.
In light of this, Rawls points to the shortcomings and common criticisms of the Utilitarian model for justifying punishment. One fundamental criticism, and moral dilemma, is that it sanctions an innocent person being punished for the benefit of society. On the other hand, however, Utilitarianism agrees that punishment is to be put into effect only in the event of the violation of a law. Utilitarianism seeks to limit the use of punishment by declaring it justifiable only if it can be shown to foster effectively the good of society. Consequently, the Utilitarian principle is accused of justifying too much.