Ethics is descried as many different ways and people have different points of view when it comes to ethics and specific topics. Relativism, determinism, psychological egoism and existentialism are different types of theories when it comes to ethics. The death penalty has different type of opinions thanks to the different types of ethics people follow. Relativism for example states that each person or culture is responsible for creating his or her own perspective of morality. So I believe this is not a good system to follow, because if I do something that is probably wrong, I would say it is not that bad to do it. I think this system is made to justify our own actions. However when it comes to relativism people get to say if homosexuality is right or wrong, and I do not think we humans are able to judge others because of their sexual preference, even when in the eyes of God is wrong. Even the pope once welcomed all homosexual people to the church and he said he wasn’t anyone to judge, and that …show more content…
It states that humans do not have free will, which means that if someone does something it does not matter if it is bad or good, it was because that is how God wanted it, because people can not choose what to do. Determinism does not make any sense because how are we supposed to punish someone who had no choice over his actions, and how would we be able to determine if the person really had no other choice. If someone kills some other person they would not be punished because they had no choice, and then people would be killing people like crazy because they might not being punished. When it comes to death penalty, maybe they would kill a lot of people because if it happens for their head, is because we do no chose bad or good, but we are driving by bad. If we were to follow determinism a lot of innocent people would die and a lot of people who deserve to be punish will be found not guilty or
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
Ethics is the study of morality. Morality is composed of the standards that an individual or group has about what is right or wrong and good or bad. Through ethics, you are able to reflect on one’s moral standards or moral stands of a group or society and asking whether they are reasonable. One must keep in mind ethical relativism when analyzing whether a situation is right or wrong. Ethical relativism says that moral right and wrong depend on the culture a person belongs to. Since societies differ in the moral standards there is no single correct set of moral standards everyone should follow. The three main schools of thought learned for ethics are utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and ethics of care. Using these three schools of thoughts I will analyze an episode of Catfish.
Ethics are the principles that shape individual lives in modern society. It is a subjective idea that seems to have a standard in society. Ethics and morals are the major factors that guide individuals to make right and wrong choices. Something that is morally right to one person might be the very opposite of what another person would view as right. There are many factors that can trigger a change in an individual’s view of morality.
There are many ethical systems that were created over the years, each created to support curtain people’s beliefs, cultures, and ideologies. Out of all the systems that were presented in this course I believe that relativism and absolutism most aligns with my beliefs. Relativism is the fact that there is no absolute and that what is considered right and wrong varies from person to person and society to society. While absolutism “is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act”.(Philosophy, n.d). I believe that there is a right and a wrong in the world (absolutism) but,
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
Ethics are not universal throughout the world due to the many different persons and cultures that have different moral beliefs and ethics. However, within an area where the culture is similar and the majority of the people in society believe in the same morals and beliefs, all of their ethics can be said to be relative. Rather than believing if an action is good or bad, morals from different cultures and settings are viewed as being either accepted or not accepted. As long as an action is viewed as being accepted then that is a moral of that culture. An example of a moral being accepted in a culture when other cultures do not accept it is killing. There are some cultures that believe in the concept of suicide and/or homicide, while other
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
As a function, ethics is a philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct, and of the rules and principles it should govern. As a system, ethics are a social, religious, or civil code of behavior considered correct by a particular group, profession, or individual. As an instrument, ethics provide perspective regarding the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, or potential outcomes. Ethical decision-making can include many types, including deontological (duty), consequentialism (including utilitarianism), and virtue ethics. Additionally, subsets of relativism, objectivism, and pluralism seek to understand the impact of moral diversity on a human level. Although distinct differences separate these ethical systems, organizations
If there is no room for choice or chance then everything happens without an individuals responsibility of doing something, mean that people can not be held to their actions, because individuals are not able to chose their actions no matter how virtuous or viscous they may be, as all their actions are all already predetermined. The idea of hard determinism refutes the idea of if-then statements because human choices and actions are not taken into factor because under hard determinism humans are not responsible for our actions. Hard determinism received its greatest influence from the physicist Isaac Newton, and his studies in physics and his idea of the universe as “matter in motion”. People who believe in Newton’s “matter in motion” theory who also believe in hard determinism applied the idea to everything in the universe, that everything is just matter in motion including humans, who need to obey the laws of nature just as anything else needs
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is based on culture or society. Implicit in the basic formulations of both theories, the moral code of a culture is neither superior nor inferior to any other. The codes of individual cultures are just different and there is no standard or basis upon which to perform any type of comparison. Therefore, under both theories, the lack of standards across cultures implies that attempts to judge relative correctness or incorrectness between them cannot be justified. For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral.
The first type of ethic is,descriptive ethics or morals is best studied as psychology,sociology or anthropology. Different societies have different moral codes. This is true because, every society has a different religion,culture or specific routine or belief.Morals are classified as descriptive science. They are studied by many,many people and are all looked upon differently.Morals are also considered to be the shared ideas of a group irrespective of whether they are practiced.or how they are practiced.Different persons,groups,and societies have different moral standards, this is seen true by all sides. As you well know everyone has an opinion, moral ethics is all based on opinion. Second is,normative ethics or perspective ethics. This is the study of moral problems which seek to discover how one might act, not in fact how they act. Normative ethics also applies to how one might think one should act. Normative ethics are based solely on the opinion of another person, unlike descriptive ethics.More specifically (normative) ethics are the discipline concerned judgements of setting up norms.Although moral ethics go hand in hand they are different.Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. Meaning morals inform you on human behavior whereas...