Having a choice to do wrong from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which lead’s to development in the society as a whole. Waldron offers a paradox to explain his position on individuals having a moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron’s position on the idea of individuals having the moral right to do wrong, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron’s position and demonstrate if there is really such a moral right using my views that will be enhanced by John Stewart Mill views. Jeremy Waldron begins with the clarification that if we take moral rights seriously than we must accept the possibility that an individual may do something that is wrong from a moral point of view. I will begin to illustrate what Waldron means by such a right.
John Rawls and Robert Nozick write about very different societies and offer the ways that these societies will be governed and the rights its citizens will have. Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness differs from Nozick’s ultra-minimal state in various ways. They each describe the issues of justice, morality and the law through the issues of rights of citizens and the power of individuals. If I had a choice, I would prefer to live in a liberal society as Rawls mentions, in which I would be able to act as a free and equal person with basic rights and have the ability to participate in the creation of institutions. In “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Rawls introduces a concept of a justice as fairness, which is constituted
In this essay I am going to describe these levels and how it can impact the counseling process. The first level of the Racial / Cultural Identity Development Model is the conformity level. Conformity means within standards or what is considered to be normal. People in this stage may feel pressured to repress their culture value or identity so that they can feel as if they fit in. “It is reasonable to believe that members of one cultural group tend to adjust themselves to the group possessing the greater prestige and power in order to avoid feelings of inferiority” (Sue & Sue, 2016, p.368).
A main point and perhaps the premise of Kymlicka’s argument in a few words is that ‘Freedom is linked to culture’. His argument was that in order to truly consider ourselves free, we have to belong to a culture. In particular, Kymlicka argues in favour of minority rights, his argument therefore centres on the point that understanding and making sure minority groups continue to exist stands in accordance with liberal thought on justice and can be a factor in enlarging the freedom of individuals. Kymlicka then uses the works of the likes of Ronald Dworkin, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls to support his argument. (Triadafilopoulos, 1997, p. 267) While it is important to note that Kymlicka’s argument is valuable especially in terms of his scope and clarity and especially in the fact that the principles outlined in his work has helped in the greater understanding of the problems of cultural, ethnic and racial conflict, Kymlicka’s argument also falls short of being compelling in certain areas.
Moreover, once a definition of justice is agreed upon (in a particular state), the question may be raised of how important it is. Is justice salient, or is there another concept that transcends its authority? Some argue that an aggregative concept would best suit a first principle (if indeed there were one). I would argue that justice is indeed salient, that without it there would be no such thing as civil society and therefore that it is the supreme virtue of society. Justice has long been heralded as key to the creation and maintenance of a society, yet why this is has been harder to pinpoint.
We cannot assume that the same circumstances apply equally to any human population. The tendency to make this assumption is something we need to be very aware of when drawing broad conclusions regarding pro-social behaviour from a limited sample. This implication highlights the need for cross-cultural research into pro-social behaviour. Each cultural group has social norms. Cultures also share values, which specify what kinds of pro-social behaviour are considered desirable.
In conclusion, I suggest that although both arguments are flawed – that the cosmopolitan perspective offers a constructive perspective on global justice that doesn’t have to be in contrast to communitarianism. In the communitarian view, the communities that make up the international world system are characterised by difference and therefore should be treated as individual moral units (). Margaret Moore defends the communitarian approach to global justice, as she believes that the cultural approach is both central to personal autonomy and a true notion of global justice. This is inherently important to collective self-determination of peoples who should, ideally hav... ... middle of paper ... ...y for the social choices they make. Therefore, there is an overarching standing against the cosmopolitan concept of wealth redistribution.
Before I present an alternate "moral guideline" I will lay out Rorty's concept of self-creation and liberalism. Rorty rejects traditional moral theory because of its reliance on a common human nature or essence. He defines human essence as being that "something within each of us . . .
Normative Theories of Politics - Contrasting Cosmopolitan and Communitarian Approaches When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone.
The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; 6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards practices of other cultures. II. Arguments that Cultural Relativism is True An argument that would support cultural relativism would claim first that different cultures have different moral codes.