Terrence Manley
1/21/18
Ethics
Reading Report #1: Moral Nihilism Moral nihilism is the form of moral skepticism that says the world contains no moral features and so there is nothing for moral claims to be true of. Basically, moral nihilism is a philosophical concept that states nothing is moral or immoral. Moral nihilism composes itself of two major categories, the error theory and expressivism. According to moral nihilists, whenever we don’t intervene in situations and issues that require our opinion that consists of feelings and emotions, factually, there is no definite right or wrong conclusion to the situation. For an example, we can say that killing an individual is bad or evil. We can say that getting that removing a cat from a tree is good, but when you analyze both situations without feelings, emotions or judgement, the fact that killing someone or removing a cat from a tree isn’t bad or good because there is no definite moral reality to describe the nature of likewise situations. Morality is an
…show more content…
The error theory has three main claims, there are no moral features in the world, no moral judgements are true, and moral judgements always fail to describe the moral features of things. No moral facts mean no moral claims are correct. The error theory is based upon knowledge, knowledge is based entirely upon truth. No moral truths conclude that there isn’t and can’t be any moral knowledge to acquire. To give a better understanding of this statement, a non-fiction book is composed entirely of facts and no opinions. Therefore, you gain knowledge from it. As opposed to a fiction book, there can be many opinions and judgements in the book, therefore, you gain bias information from it, and even then, that information isn’t based off any facts. Error theorists can still find such actions like killing or robbing unproductive and despicable and have their hearts set against
Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle is a satire of reality – a heckling comment on the unpleasant and often silly nature of mankind and the overall pointlessness of existence. That is not to say, however, that the pointlessness of the universe should take away from the enjoyment of living. Through exhibition of bland or unpleasant characters, extremely morbid humor, and some intensely nihilistic ideas, Vonnegut makes an unusual argument in favor of life. Cat’s Cradle seeks to demonstrate that everything is ridiculous and no one should take themselves too seriously. Because, in the end, the Universe is ultimately meaningless and the only enjoyment one will have in life is what they find or create for themselves.
Pojman writes that morality is nonexistent because of mankind's subjectivism. Subjectivism is the idea that people determine their own set of morals, and they can not be in the wrong as long as they live by their own standards. Pojman uses the example of Adolph Hitler, and the fact that Hitler could be considered moral in the eyes of subjectivism. If this is true, who are we to say that Hitler was in the wrong.
A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all peoples at all times. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. Culture and personal morals cause a person to make certain moral decisions.
Nihilists-People who believe traditional morals, ideas, etc. have no worth or value. They believe society 's political and social institutions are bad and it should be destroyed. They believed that anything and everything associated with the Tsar should be eliminated. An Example of a Russian nihilistic group is the peoples will who believed the only way to achieve freedom was to kill the czar.
It seems everyone has a piece to say on the way we educate children in America. Stand in any busy public space and you’re likely to be within a stone’s throw of some mouthpiece with a few choice thoughts on education. This is convenient, because a large portion of these people could really benefit from having a stone hucked at them. Enter Jerome Stern, our very own discount Shel Silverstein. Jerome’s platform is inundated with Orwellian fearmongering as he hopes to convince anyone who will listen of the terrors of public schooling.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Moral skepticism is an ethical theorem that claims that no one has any moral knowledge.
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
In this paper, I examine the connection between judgments of fact and moral judgments in an attempt to discern whether moral judgments are simply a subset of judgments of fact. I will look mostly at an argument posed by many moral realists that takes moral facts to be “supervenient natural facts which are independent of our theorizing about them”1 and in which moral judgments are determined by objective facts which relate to human flourishing or pleasure and pain. I will also, though, take a look at the fact/value gap and determine the effect on the connection between moral judgments and judgments of fact of an attempt to close this gap.
Morality is making the distinction between doing what is beneficial or doing what is detrimental. Everything in this world is connected and depends on a sense of morality. “We care for people, billions of organisms, and myriads of habitats they support, because we now appreciate that we draw our life from each other, and that we are all mutually implicated in each other’s fate” (Wirzba 88). Our lives are ultimately connected with the state and well-being of other individuals. We discern the fate of ourselves when we care about the fate of others. If we choose to disregard the needs of our settings, we are living immorally in regard to our surroundings and ourselves.
Moral objectivity is the rejection of enthnocentricism, or belief that one’s culture is superior than others. In short, one’s cultural beliefs cannot fundamentally be legitimate morals in the sense that they do not have to follow the “objective” morals. For example, Pojman supports a view stating that morals are universal, that they are "objective" in regard to it being that it doesn 't matter about what a culture defines as moral or immoral, that certain morals are undebatable. Such as for example, torturing children for fun is wrong. This is objectively true no matter what the world says otherwise; another example being that some still think the Earth is flat. In other words, moral objectivism states that "moral standards are true or correct for everybody"2. Thus moral objectivists tend to look at morals as absolutes. Pojman argued that humans are social creatures and that as humans, we did not want to live as "hermits"(first edition, 33), thus certain agreements must be made in order to attain community. Explaining further that agreements are "human nature" and that agreements are at the "core" of morality, as well as stating that to "flourish as a person" we agree to these moral codes in order to maintain harmony and peace. Morals in an evolutionary perspective, allow humans to survive. Such as for example, murder or killing other humans deemed as immoral or wrong. Pojman gives the example of serial murder Ted Bundy, who in his mind believed that killing people was O.K because it made him happy. He believed that killing and raping others is completely fine because those were his morals and what he personally believed in. This disturbs the social harmony and a moral objectivist would beg the question of whether it is right to murder and rape others because one or culture views it as acceptable. Same question can be asked about Hitler, as Pojman did, does it make it acceptable and justifiable that because Hitler and the
But what makes an action, object, or person good or bad? Pleasure, happiness or any other good feelings, or lack thereof, is what makes something moral. Even though there is no set, written rules for morality, the strength of morality codes worldwide. If an action or person distresses a group, it’s deemed immoral. An example could be shown with this quote: “In one view, Abe’s act is immoral because this shooting causes death, so it is an act of killing, and killing is immoral unless it is justified, which it is not in this case.
Morals are the principles that we use to decipher right from wrong, or good from bad. Many people seem to have different morals that they live by because of the different things they believe are acceptable or good to do. This issue brings up the question, are morals unique to each individual person, or is there a standard of true morals for every person to live by? Matt Lawrence’s book, Like a Splinter in Your Mind, says that opposing sides to that question can be split into two broad categories called moral objectivism and moral non-objectivism. The idea that there is a true basic standard of morality for everyone is called moral objectivism. Moral non-objectivism is the view that no morals are objectively true, meaning either morals don’t
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. The. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek.