Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance. The nature of the principle, according to Singer, is contentious, for if applied has the potential to change everything about our values and lives. One of the reasons as to why that is the case is that the principle does not care for the proximity of the one
Nihilists believe that if determinism is true, there is no free will. They take the stand that everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control, and as such, we do not and never act freely since such forces cause our actions. Libertarians hold the view that at least some of our actions are not forced on us by the Laws of Nature. Instead, we have the ability to freely choose to perform those actions, and nothing makes us do so. They claim that human choices are not constrained like other events are.
How can moral judgement be passed if the concept (a subjective construct) responsibility and morality is detached from any objectivity? Furthermore, objectivity cannot be restricted by binaries such as good and evil. With that said, it seems life negating to pass moral judgement on a peer based on a code of morals without an objective foot to stand on. Nietzsche is also concerned with another leg of the traditional concept of responsibility: Causality. Nietzsche maintains that: Firstly, free will and unfree will does not exist and an actor does not act out of free will.
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.
Instinct ethics relies on the interpretation of monkey behavior, authority ethics cannot be used across all cultures because different people believe different things whether it is religious or not. However, virtue ethics is straightforward and there is no room for ethics to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. If somebody sees a trait that they admire in somebody, then that is an admirable trait, and they should act that way. If they see an undesirable trait in a person, they should not act like that, because that is the immoral thing to do. This is something that
In the experience, the command that required me to admit I was guilty and evil since birth surely could not be considered justified, not mentioning in my eyes their source of power was not legitimate as well. Some people would contend that both sides in that room still had a kind of consensus, which is that a person should not offense the party. However, when facing an authority with his unforeseeable possible punitive resorts, the only way to avoid them is not to explicitly arguing against him. A seemly agreeable attitude did not
First, Hursthouse highlights an objection that challenges which character traits are used under the ideas of virtue theory. “We do not know which character traits are the virtues, or that this is open to much dispute, or particularly subject to the threat of moral scepticism or ‘pluralism’ or cultural relativism” (Hursthouse 587). If you take a look at what someone asks of a moral person through virtue theory, it leaves a lot of room for debate especially across different cultures, because there is no set principles to determine a moral person. Hursthouse certainly acknowledges this fact. However, she doesn’t accomplish her initial objective of attempting to explain why virtue theory is still applicable.
He states that virtue is an abstract concept and because of that it doesn’t have any real world consequences. Keeping that in mind virtue won’t be an adequate guide to being a politician. Machiavelli even defines it as receiving praise, not have a good moral compass. Doing what is morally right will gain you favor with the people that you’re ruling, but it may only last a short time if there are unforeseen consequences. A leader in charge of a large group of people needs to cast aside their personal moralities and think of the big picture.
Even though Walter is not a key player in the the novel, his character still faces discrimination,he is discriminated against because of his family's social class. He is looked down upon by Scout, because he pours molasses all over his lunch, while visiting the Finch's home. Scout rudely asks him why he poured molasses all over his food. When Calpurnia speaks to Scout about it, Scout says “He ain’t company, Cal, he’s just a Cunningham” (Lee ,13). Scout feels as though Walter is not a proper guest in her home because of his family being lower class.
Moreover, this idea contradicts the universality of human rights because the morality and human rights has been determined by every society which sets its morality and human rights according to its own interests and perception. Accordingly, there are no shared legal or moral standards because substantive human rights standards vary, which reflect the conventions of each culture. Actually, cultural relativism’s call for more culturally-relative human rights in order to promote human security is not logical and unjustified. For instance, cultural relativism has not confronted and fought against the practices which violate human rights in many countries. A practical example of this can be seen in a number of Muslim countries, including Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Syria, entered reservations of CEDAW on the basis of Shari‘ah or religion generally.