An Analysis of Theories

Your moral compass forms an ethical norm, and this is very much an impulsive decision, not one made based on knowledge. Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of many different factors and many times we can very easily believe something simply because it is embedded in our belief system, with little to no evidence. Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence.

Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal.

Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.

The purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate how the arguments supporting utilitarianism are no... ... middle of paper ... ...patible because utilitarians then consider greatly unjust acts as morally right, which is not the case. In conclusion, after looking at the objections and considering every point of the utilitarian methodology, it is safe to say that the arguments for it are not very strong. “[Utilitarianism] results from the proceeding considerations that there is in reality nothing desired except happiness” (Mill, 115). However, it is hard to even define happiness making the approach that much more difficult to follow. All in all, the main reasons to reject utilitarianism are as follows: utilitarianism is not always feasible, it only takes into account end goals, conflicts with an individual’s integrity, and is incompatible with justice.

Kant argues that human reasoning is limited in its ability to provide an example of true morality. In his essay, he states that what humans perceive as good morals does not necessarily fit the conditions of what can be categorized as universal law of morality. Kant believes that people must hold morality not solely as an idea or set of exceptions but as an absolute idea (Kant 408). This absolute idea should be free of human rationalization in order to create a pure example. He believes this to be the case because within this form of rationalizing what is good from what is wrong there are often cases that stray away from true virtue such as human behavior.

Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has a fairly explicit concept of what is moral. Kant’s perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on morality whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kant's time, but it is still impossible today.

What we have to do is discover what they are.”1 The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean that morals are relative, all that it... ... middle of paper ... ... suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles.

However, he did think that God was a postulate of practical reason. The word postulate meaning an assumption of truth as the basis of an argument or theory, although Kant used the term in a stronger sense, to denote the idea of something which is required to be the case. The postulates of morality, for example, denote the assumptions that must be made by anyone who accepts an objective morality. Kant had great trust in the universe being fair, and that if summum bon... ... middle of paper ... ...ee it as an aim and would therefore never strive to achieve it. With a goal or an aspiration, there is always the chance that we may not acquire it, which essentially makes us make every effort.

However, Kant’s perception of what constitutes morality was highly criticized and often discounted. Kant, perhaps better than any other philosopher attempting to address morality and duty, was able to see past the simplistic interpretation that by doing well for others a person could achieve morality and efficiently commit to their “duties’. According to Younkins, “Kant holds that the pursuit of a person’s own happiness is of no moral worth whatsoever” This is because Kant felt that in order to be truly moral a person’s actions must be absent of personal desire, gain or consideration. In that end, Kant, according to Younkins posited that in order to achieve morality the decisions to act must be 1) not meant to attain

Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me?(Wallace,2005). This is what enforcement of moral values cause people to do, pretend to be good instead of changing their selves. I think force never solves the problems instead suppress them, sometimes it is helpful but mostly they emerge with greater strength. When it comes to morality this is something we cannot enforce, because there are some values which looks like immoral to you but it might not be in others views.