"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you." This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.
What, then, of moral truths? The correspondence theo... ... middle of paper ... ...ll, or is the pragmatist theory correct? Perhaps, then, the pragmatist theory is closest to how humans behave, even if how we behave is not always in accordance with an ultimate truth. In the end, no current definition of truth satisfies me. I even fail to convince myself of my own beliefs on truth; there’s always a contradiction and flaw.
Even if the reason or evidence is true, the conclusion does not follow, because the pattern of the argument is flawed. One cannot deduce a conclusion from its premise, which is why it is also referred to as a deductive fallacy. An informal fallacy is where the form is usually correct, but the content being psychologically or emotionally persuasive is logically incorrect. There are three groups of informal fallacies. They include: fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of relevance, and fallacies of unwarranted assumptions.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
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. Kant sees this as a unique quality in humankind; that they can act in accordance with acceptation to the law (412). He worries ... ... middle of paper ... ...annot help themselves. Experiencing the process that happens between the realization of someone needs help to the solution is vital to understanding how to carry out a moral law. Without this someone may know what is moral but not have the means to know how to help.
Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with. Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas. After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to them. First, there is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their "conscientious conviction." When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind.
Often, it seems unquestionable why certain acts are deemed “bad”. However, these instincts lack universal application, thus morality must be clearly defined. Morality’s framework builds an idyllic state of the world, and it is vital to understand the arguments behind such scruples. Opposing intuitive morality, Singer endorses a position that questions the accepted dichotomy between charity and duty and challenges society’s perceptions by redefining moral obligations. A reconstruction of Singer’s argument leads to the conclusion that donating is obligatory; furthermore, Singer’s position juxtaposed against Mill’s utilitarianism illustrates common themes between the two theorists.
Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i... ... middle of paper ... ...absent in the utilitarian standpoint. Ergo, rule- utilitarianism does not allow for an individual's freewill because it tells one to examine others rules, or beliefs and not one's own. Thereby conforming to sociality.
It is not just the case that we can have all kinds of good reasons for what we believe, though those reasons do not quite measure up to the standards required by genuine knowledge. The radical sceptic questions whether we ever have the slightest reason for believing one thing rather than another, so we can never even get to the point of justified belief, never mind whether our justifications are sufficient for knowledge, in some more restricted sense. The second crucial feature of philosophical scepticism concerns its scope. The philosophical sceptic's negative verdict on human knowledge is highly general. This generality explains why philosophical scepticism formulates its challenge in terms of the possibility of knowledge.
‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14). Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position.