According to Singer the principle demands moral equality for non-human animals; though it is said that equal consideration of like relevant interests does not entail equal treatment. His argument is based on the fact that as long as the being is capable of suffering we are deemed to consider his/her interests and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, for Singer moral status is achieved through interests. Conversely for Singer, if the interests are not alike then we need not to treat humans and animals the same way. So how possibly can we say that we have achieved the demanded moral equality if there is not equal treatment.... ... middle of paper ... ... preform the same experiments on orphaned disabled human beings.
Ethics also includes the moral codes or values that a person holds, which are more personal than the codes of ethics. Some of the moral codes and values that I hold include; doing good to others, being fair to all, respecting others and their needs for privacy, being honest and ensuring that I contribute to the society in the best possible way. I believe that one should do good to others even when others do not do the same in return. The way others choose to treat a person should not determine how that person treats them because if the nature of that individual is to do good, then external factors should
The community then makes moral judgments based on its specific culture, history, and individuality. For these reasons Cultural Relativism helps the community, by letting the community set its own moral standards, rather than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposing a set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the different cultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to be created, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communities's religion, customs, laws, educational standards, or cult... ... middle of paper ... ...the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he would inevitably, after careful considerations of their relative merits, choose that of his own country.
In this essay, I present an opposing viewpoint: I propose that there are no moral obligations which direct how "humans" should deal with the environment, because the concept "human" is an arbitrary class with no real meaning. The problem with this environmentalist viewpoint is that the presupposition that there is some radical difference between humans and other animals is inherent in the position. Environmentalists suppose that there is something that puts us in a privileged position compared to the rest of nature. In fact, there is not. Humans have the same drives as other animals.
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.
The Theory of Ethical Relativism The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, but rather are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this theory because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesn't change what is morally right and wrong and their should be more emphasis based on the individual rights as opposed to respecting the morals of that individual's society. Allowing ourselves, as a society, to say that a time or a location makes any ethical belief or theory practiced by the masses of that time/place right and that it should be respected by people of other cultures is ignorant. There are a set of universal rights all human beings should enjoy no matter the location or time period, and those cultures that violate these rights shouldn't be embraced for being different but rather shunned upon for not recognizing the universal basic rights of the individual, despite the fact that it is hard to say what are ALL of these basic human rights. During the seventeenth century and up until the end of the nineteenth century slavery existed in America.
Martin Luther King Jr. believes there are two specific types of laws: just and unjust. Just laws are ones in which humans must obey in order to maintain the safety, equality, and freedom of the individual. He states that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.” Justly, these laws benefit society and are intended to align with the moral conscience of the human being. On the other side “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” as, according to St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all.” Unjust laws are simply a moral mistake in the governmental system that require being broken, whether that be through civil disobedience or simple negotiation to prompt the change. The way in which one determines
He tries to find something that does not have any doubt or error to it. Ethics keeps people and our Earth morally grounded. If we have no expectations, we would not be where we are today in the world with all of the advances, and friendships. The theoretical aim of moral theory is to discover those underlying features of the actions that make them morally
Inasmuch as individuals dwell within a society, there exists an ethical component to community behavior and is grounde... ... middle of paper ... ... within the realm of the individual's definition of character. The issue of whether the institution of genetic engineering would be seen as 'sane' falls to the individual to determine. If the precepts, as defined by the community, fall within the individual's own sense of 'good' and are acceptable to his character, then it is to be considered 'sane'. If these elements are not in accordance with personal definitions of 'good' it would fall outside the confines of the individual's character and would not be defined as 'sane'. Bibliography: Works Cited Aristotle.
Which means we would have to treat these animals with the same way we treat humans. Should animals be respected, yes, but should they be treated as equals? If they were our equals the world would change as we know it. Although we would be following utilitarianism, our diets and build would change. Treating animals with respect is morally right.