No one would be oppressed based on religion or ethnic origins regardless of how it may benefit the majority. Rawls rejects utilitarianism because there is no equality. People will become victi... ... middle of paper ... ... make changes to have a society filled with equality. A society as egalitarian is not far fitch, it starts with just one step. The moral limits of contracts is to be fair and the hypothetical agreement with the government is to have justice an a independent standard of fairness.
Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
If the argument that it is morally right to be obedient to the society in which one lives, no person would be thought right to criticize any practice, no matter how absurd. For example, Martin Luther King Jr., Abe Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi, and many others would not be considered as esteemed social reformers under the relativist theory of
This would mean that everyone who tells a promise would have no intention of keeping it. This would make promises pointless, as no one would keep them and there would be no reason for them. He uses this to argue that the maxim of making a promise with no intention of keeping it is not a maxim at all, because it would not work in society. Kant finds maxims very important as he believes that they are the main basis of ‘good will’. If there was no maxims, then there would be no universal morality in which we could uphold.
Hume sees moral judgements as being caused by sentiments of pain or pleasure within an agent as reason alone can never motivate, whereas Kant see the only moral actions as being those caused by reason alone, or the categorical imperative. I think that both theories have a problem with coming up with absolute moral laws - Hume's theory because absolute morality would appear to be impossible if morality is based on an individual's sentiment, and Kant's theory because it cannot prove the existence of the categorical imperative.
Ethical relativism makes an attempt to understand the behaviors in other cultures or societies without judging the action by the standards of an incompatible society where the action does not happen. Ethical absolutism does not undertake the same strategy as ethical relativism, there is no room for understanding behaviors in other cultures because once it is seen as wrong then it will always be wrong no matter the explanation behind the
Many nation’s well-being, growth and stability are sacrificed for the greater good (Mangra & Stanciu p. 81). However, the process is certainly not going anywhere. Globalization can be “wild and unmerciful” and it “submits only to the laws of competition that can have for effect the exclusion from society of a large number of people, from many countries” (Mangra & Stanciu p. 81). This ultimately leads to “the growth of conflicts and the endangering of the social cohesion” (Mangra & Stanciu p. 81). I do not how to fix this issue and I honestly do not know if it ever can be.
Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.
One supreme culture has yet to exist because a supreme culture will never exist. Everyone who abides by set laws is the same and is entitled to equal treatment. Unfortunately that has also never been the case in America. Someone representing a conceited culture always believes they must be entitled to more than another because they are somehow better the others. Arguments between culture lead to violence which twists the argument into a hate match that is never a solution.
yet, individual perception of the world by people prevents the possibility of an all-encompassing universal code of ethics. I believe along with Kant that we should develop a friendship and code to help our fellow man. We all have a duty to treat others the way we want to be treated. (Golden Rule) The one thing I disagree with is that we should not be punished for doing good deeds to those even though we might find ourselves backed into a corner when dealing with these individual problems. Overall dealing with Kant’s theory everyone should be truthful and abide by the universal code.