Following the logic above you can gain, oddly enough, that following moral intuitions, is actually morally wrong. I say this because leaning on moral intuition alone goes against both beneficence and self-improvement in regards to prima facie duties. Works Cited Campbell, R. (2003, February 4). Moral Epistemology. Stanford University.
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. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints. Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good.
Cultural Standards Are All That We Have Our world is a melting pot of different cultures, each one unique in its own respect. Who we are, and what we generally believe to be true or right is a product of what our society values. Because our way of living is what we were raised to believe as “right”, it is often hard to except the fact that others live differently. In reality, different cultures have different moral codes. The belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth is an unachievable ideal standard, and holds no practical value.
The whole premise of moral objectivism is factual and for someone to come in and say it’s wrong just because he thinks it is, can be and has been disagreed with. Mackie strongly believes that we cannot have knowledge of morality because of moral skepticism, or subjectivism. His belief that each culture has a different level of morality and that they all differ. This is seen as malarkey to many people. Objectivists believe that one culture cannot be more moral than another nor righter than another culture.
The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.
In his essay, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels argues that cultural relativism is an unsatisfactory moral theory because it is based upon an invalid argument, if cultural relativism were true, this would have some troubling and implausible consequences, and there are some moral rules common to all societies. In this short paper, I will argue that moral objectivism is a more satisfactory moral theory than ethical relativism. Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
I would consider myself a Moral Objectivist. I would consider my self a objectivist for many reason, For example Moral Relativism defines that an all beliefs and customs and ethics are relative to an individuals within his or her own social context. First, Moral Objectivism implies that what is wrong or right does not necessarily depend on what an individual thinks is right or wrong( ). To many people they think that “ Different cultures have different moral codes”(). To many that’s the key understanding to morality, However in ethics some say it is in actuality a myth.
In turn, this criticism means that because our cultures are incredibly complex relativism attempts to explain and justify our moral differences by saying they are a result of our different cultures and history. Therefore the differences between moralities of cultures are blamed on their cultural and historical differences leading us to be accepting of these differences and encouraging coexistence. Although, the complexity of cultures is not a justification for being accepting of cultures. Relativism deems it immoral to condemn a culture 's actions and to be intolerant; however, if a culture were to arise that was clearly morally intolerant we should stand against it. When we apply relativism we are focusing on agreement and tolerance between cultures; however, not all cultures should be tolerated.
If objectivists see something that is clearly morally wrong like child abuse they wouldn’t just tolerate it. If you were to tolerate everything that people do then nobody would support one another or stick up for what they believe is right. Moral objectivism has just the right amount of tolerance to keep peace with people while still standing up for what is
Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims that everyone has a moral duty only to believe what is supported by reliable evidence and that we do more harm than good in doing so. Many agree with this belief but I feel it is not a realistic view because it displays a lack of trust and faith. I agree more with James who argues that it is appropriate to have individual beliefs on non- rational grounds, as in matters of passion, desired out come and choice. James claims that belief without evidence is justified for "genuine options" because belief in a fact is necessary for