Ethical egoism is a mistaken theory in that it leads to logical contradictions (Rachels p.87). If one were to protect one’s interest that would require one to prevent another from carrying out their duty to their self, it would be both right and wrong to do so. However that is not logical and self-contradictory, thus not would not be basing conduct on reason. To reiterate, the theory of ethical egoism states that one should put his or her own needs before others, this fails the second part of the minimum conception of morality. Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine.
The theory’s problems start arising when you start to think “why do our actions become moral if society or our culture approves of them?” There is also nothing in the theory of Cultural Relativism that explains why normal behavior in a society is considered the moral behavior instead of the other way around. Thus, morality is decided on a random basis there is nothing that says what makes normal behavior moral. The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism both share this weakness that discredits
Cultural relativism states that there are correct answers to ethical issues. However, unlike objectivism, cultural relativism also states that these answers may vary from culture to culture. Subjectivism states that there are correct answers to ethical issues but that these answers depend on the individuals. Ethical Nihilism states that there are no correct answers to ethical issues. Nihilism states that since we do not know where we would find these ethical answers then there must not be any.
But to grant that rule-responsibility is socially essential does not grant that it is the essence of morality. QE is flawed as it reduces the topic of moral character to the topic of conscientiousness or rule-responsibility, but it gives no account of the role of the character as a whole in moral deliberation and it excludes questions of character that are not directly concerned with the resolution of problems. Taking into account the criticisms of modern ethical theory I have discussed, it is clearly evident that an ethical theory shaped in light of these criticisms would be very similar to virtue ethics, emphasizing character and centering around the question, "how should I live? ".
Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me?(Wallace,2005). This is what enforcement of moral values cause people to do, pretend to be good instead of changing their selves. I think force never solves the problems instead suppress them, sometimes it is helpful but mostly they emerge with greater strength. When it comes to morality this is something we cannot enforce, because there are some values which looks like immoral to you but it might not be in others views.
Those who do not agree do not truly understand the reality of police work and have no right to judge. (Williams Pg. 88) The last technique of police rationalization, appeal to higher loyalties, is when officers to not testify or “rat out” their own. This loyalty is called the blue wall. It is difficult to get police authorities to testify against their own, even when you have officers who do not break the laws, or do anything unjust.
He writes: When one says that such a proposition can’t be proved, of course that does not mean... ... middle of paper ... ...uld be discovered after further reflection. So, it is not true to say that prima facie beliefs are necessarily infallible. Some of them are fallible and it may be found after reflection that they are false indeed. Up to now, I tried to outline different important elements of Rossian intuitionist framework (both normative and epistemology). This could help us to have a big picture of what Ross did for moral intuitionism.
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
It would be unacceptable to the community because it would like to promote truthfulness and punishment of the law offenders. This decision also has to be evaluated on the basis of internal criteria. For the internal criteria, a person has to look inside oneself to evaluate the decision. Does the person feel satisfied with the decision and promote these values? The doctor’s decision does not give the inner sense of contentment; we experience “hate, discontent…confusion” (Panicola 71).
The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.