President Obama’s approval ratings continue to tank and the black clouds of recession remains over the economy. Curiously, however, he spends much of his time trolling for bottom feeders by dropping his progressive net into the murky, stagnate, backwaters of network television in an effort to shore up his base. He is in his element schmoozing with daytime and late-night talk shows laughing it up with lightweight liberals. Running the Ship of State aground or demeaning the Office of the Presidency does not appear to be a big deal to the community organizer from the left-side of Chicago. Additionally, he continues the union circuit, ingratiating himself with the hard-core Marxist unions of the country that are responsible for much of the financial woes from which our country suffers.
Humans try to forfeit a good deal of their agency to the gods willingly. Nevertheless the gods have no reservations about revoking agency from humans. Neither Job nor Odysseus had agency when a god was against them. Job has no agency, no participation in God’s decision to make him the object of a wager. God does not give him the option to decline and he is presented with no opportunity in which he might refuse God outright.
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?
Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake. The contractarian account is also unacceptable because it has no foorce in the case of the Lydia Shepherd. (3) Finally, Plato holds that we must reject the contractarian account because a better account is available to us, viz., his own account of justice. But to show this Plato must establish each of the following: 1. There really is a difference between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest, that there can be a difference between what one believes to be in one's interest and what really is in one's interest.
Descartes expects one to become master of oneself and "the world" by methodologically suspending his judgement on what cannot qualify itself to be undoubtable. Kant leads us to the point where we can triangulate universal conditions of the possibility of knowledge through individually acquiring the competence to judge the legitimacy of encountered propositional claims. Finally, Fichte confronts us with the idea of the identity of self-consciousness and objectivity. (1) Transcending ordinary life and experience to a somewhat higher being is surely not the scope of transcendental philosophy. What the revolutionary achievements of Descartes, Kant, and Fichte have generically in common is to account for the legitimacy of our knowledge claims or, in other words, for the possibility of autonomy.
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? ".
Through both the actions and dialogue of the banker the reader saw how greed causes man to behave. Via the dialogue and thoughts of the dynamic character, the lawyer, the reader realized the awful results of avarice. Greed is a timeless theme that, throughout history, has had a perpetually poor outcome.
The immorality of the characters of Jay Gatsby and Tom Buchanan is due to the corrupted values popularized by the American Dream. This statement can be confirmed with the importance given to consumerism by Gatsby and his illegal act, and the supposedly superiority and the selfishness of Tom. The American society gives to Jay Gatsby immoral values and it also corrupts him by the importance given to money. Gatsby’s first contact with the American Dream is when he discovers Cody’s big yacht: “[…] that yacht represented all the beauty and glamour in the world” (Fitzgerald 100). Cody is a man who makes his fortune with metal and who become alcoholic.
For the communitarian, the liberal approach is inadequate because of its insistence on a universal and ahistorical approach to justice. According to Waltzer, there is no way to step outside history or culture(211). People, as much as they would like to believe otherwise, are bound, and somewhat controlled by society's norms and behaviours. For the communitarian, there is no way to detach people from the social realm because it is apart of who we are as humans. We are shaped by the events of history, and shown how to behave within our culture.
It also shows the negative effects, bad morals and poor business ethics can have on society. The film revolves around the actions of two main characters, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) and Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Bud is a young stockbroker who comes from a working-class family and Gekko is a millionaire who Bud admires and wants to be associated with. Wall Street points out how wrong it is to exchange morality for money. Gordon Gekko reflects this message, and yet receives a standing ovation at a stockholders meeting after delivering his "greed is good" speech.