Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
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.
Recognizing the great extent of moral disagreements, some contemporary philosophers start to wonder whether morality is absolute in its nature. They propose a theory known as Moral Relativism, which holds that “moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other” (Dreier, p.1); no absolute moral fact exists independently of those standards. The opposite theory of Moral Relativism is Moral Absolutism---the idea that moral proposition is determined by absolute, unvarying moral facts. In this paper, I will argue that Moral Relativism is not a suitable theory in explaining the nature of morality. I will start by introducing two famous arguments in favor of Moral Relativism and explain why they are flawed arguments.
Therefore, no standard line was drawn for people to judge weather one culture is good or bad than the other. In fact, based on relativism, we all think our culture is right, then when we see other culture we will use our method to criticise others. When we judge them, instead of thinking wether it is right or wrong, we are comparing them with our own culture. On the other hand, since people believe in different moral codes, there is also no “universal truth” that people are all believe is right and follow it as a rule. So we should not judge others, instead we ought to accept and tolerate other
P2: Well informed, open minded people intractably disagree about all ethical claims C: Therefore there are no objective moral truths. This is the fundamental claim for moral relativism. Cultural relativism is really an application of this statement as it acknowledges that individuals disagree about ethical claims, but aims to impose a ‘golden rule’ to determine whether an act is morally wrong or right. To put the cultural relativism theory into words: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society to which the agent belongs. The studies of cultural relativism and moral relativism are often confused and it is important to know how to differentiate between the two.
However, killing someone is morally wrong and if everyone could kill then eventually it would lead to almost no one being alive. This is a prime example of when a group has a better reason to hold their belief over ano... ... middle of paper ... ...ind a correct way to judge another’s ethics. In addition to not identifying that some cultures have better reasons to hold their beliefs than others, ethical relativism fails to recognize that not every culture is a well-defined subsection of people. Some individuals belong to multiple cultures, so then which culture holds presidency over the others in determining one’s behavior as moral or immoral? Even though the theory of ethical relativism is rejected by most, it must be acknowledged that it raises important issues that should not be ignored.
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.
They believe that they are not the ones to judge other cultures about what is ethical because morals are learned from people’s societies and are relative. Those who believe in ethical relativism do not view ethics as a universal standard, so they do not form their own opinions about what is immoral or unethical and instead remain neutral to the subject. Cultural and ethical relativists are similar in the fact that they both consider actions of a culture to be due to their society and realize that cultural practices have a reasoning behind
Moreover, it enables individuals to become accustomed ethically as technology, knowledge, and culture change in society. This is the valid and good kind of relativism. On the other hand, ethical relativism is disadvantageous in that wrong and right, justice, and truth are all relative. Only because some people think that some things are right does not make them so. A perfect example of this is slavery where 200 years ago, th... ... middle of paper ... ...verging from those norms is acting immorally.
"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.