For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception. Only having absolutes creates a theory that is extremely hard only to abide by, especially when deontological though permits you from making a choice when that choice would clearly be optimal... ... middle of paper ... ...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals.
I will start by introducing two famous arguments in favor of Moral Relativism and explain why they are flawed arguments. I will later address some problems with the theory itself. Two forms of Moral Relativism are Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism. Subjectivism holds that what is morally right and wrong depends on individual’s opinions. A person’s approval of something makes it morally right; a person’s disapproval of something makes it morally wrong.
I find, however, that one can tackle his dilemma and reveal holes in his argument in a manner that would allow us to uphold the concept of morality and moral evaluation in the world. This is my aim. Nagel’s primary concern is in holding people morally accountable for certain things which are out of their control. “…we feel that the appropriateness of moral assessment is easily undermined by the discovery that the act or attribute, no matter how good or bad, is not under the person’s control” (Nagel 25). For Nagel, moral luck is defined as an instance in which a significant aspect of what someone does is dependent on factors outside of his control, yet we still treat him as the primary object of moral judgment.
Having said that, to what extent do ethics limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in the arts and the natural sciences? In order to correctly explore the knowledge issue, an explanation of what ethics means in accordance to emotion and reason must be done. Ethics allows for the judgment of actions and ideas, in agreement to the established moral codes. Ethics exist because of moral dilemmas and emotional desires to assess consequences. Actions that lead to harmful consequences and provoke culpability and shame are considered immoral.
In particular it is logic that provides the rational and critical approach in ethics. So logic help us to understand the nature of moral dilemmas. It has been suggested that all moral dilemmas result from some kind of inconsistency in the moral rules. So our being faced with unsolvable moral situation merely reflected an implicit inconsistency in our existing moral code and that we forced... ... middle of paper ... ...sibus perplexis// Th. Hobbes.
Both cases are morally difficult, how does it appear acceptable to sacrifice the life of one for others like in the trolley case but when pushing an individual to do so makes it unacceptable. Moral philosophers use such cases in an attempt to understand how people use utilitarian methods to make a moral decision that could cause lasting affects. Joshua Greene is the author of the article The Secret Joke of Kant’s Sou. He uses support to identify that consequentialism and deontology are “two different ways of moral thinking” (Greene). Greene clarifies that people’s moral intuitions and judgments are simply rationales for human decision-making.
Utilitarians can respond to this objection by challenging the claim that pursuing one’s own desires cannot ever be consistent with the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Certainly there can be times when pursuing one’s own desires is also consistent with producing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarians might also point out that moral theories are meant to be demanding because they are teaching individuals how to act morally and acting morally is not always the desirable course of
My definition may still have some tweaks for the immorality of things but the first part of it, harm is anything that violates others and one’s rights is harm can apply with more affect in society because everyone has a different opinion on what is immoral or moral and to extents. The immoral part of the definition will need to start with oneself to help society determine what the people agree on.
People may try to justify its use by claiming it can be used to gain critical information or in similar situations; this is a feeble attempt to use possible results in order to justify the terrible use of torture as a means of getting there. To deontology, torture is morally wrong, and more than that, it is always morally wrong. There is no situation in which torture should be used, period. The way torture grossly outstrips people’s human autonomy and right to be treated as ends in themselves makes it a moral evil in the eyes of deontology. In addition, torture’s maxim of allowing for one person to harm another for gain is also not universalizable, making it an even more morally corrupt action.
Therefore, moral conflict should be judged case by case since the situations are very complicated. Besides, most likely the moral dilemmas will not have the perfect solution but it still can be solved; what we can do to solve the moral conflicts is analyzing between different solutions to minimize the loss and pursuit the right value. Since you cannot predict the result of the events, there is no definite answer that determines whether your decision is right or wrong. What you have to do is achieve social justice. I believe that moral conflict can be solved with the goal that maximizes the morality and achieves social justice.