Because they are different, doesn't necessarily imply there is any disagreement. So my answer is yes, this example does mean that there is no objective truth, because we cannot say that their practice (Greeks vs. the Callatians) is incorrect or immoral as much as they can say our practices are immoral. To label a culture's belief in certain practices as possibly being "mistaken," doesn't sound very openminded in any way at all. The next example Rachels uses to make his point clearer, is that in certain societies, because they believe that the earth is fla... ... middle of paper ... ...slavery. The objections I have to Rachels' argument against morality being relative are pretty much limited to the way he applies his examples.
Bertrand Russell is a very influential writer within the realm of philosophy. His specific work titled, The Problems of Philosophy discusses the many things that he believes is wrong with the way people think, act towards, treat, and study philosophy as a whole. The one specific essay focused on was titled The Value of Philosophy in chapter xv. This essay focused on why he believes that philosophy was worth studying and why he believes that those who don’t see his vision are wrong and at a disadvantage. More specifically he addresses the “practical man”, which he defines specifically as “one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind”
In her essay she also states what is right and wrong with both sides. The theory called Kantianism written by the famous philosopher Kant is difficult to understand O’neil tells us, because Kant gives a number of versions of what he calls the Principal of Morality. O’nei... ... middle of paper ... ...ere we want to go. It is on our answer to this question that our whole happiness and our worth as human beings depends…. Our problem is to find those answers that do in fact work (Taylor/ pp.69).” Kant and O’neil do not answer these questions.
They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that situation is superior to that of a detached, objective observer. This emphasis on the perspective of the individual agent has also made existentialists suspicious of systematic reasoning. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and other existentialist writers have been deliberately unsystematic in the exposition of their philosophies, preferring to express themselves in aphorisms, dialogues, parables, and other literary forms. Despite their antirationalist position, however, most existentialists cannot be said to be irrationalists in the sense of denying all validity to rational thought.
The idea of Categorical Imperatives, or universal duties is an unachievable ideal standard. After analyzing many different viewpoints, I have come to conclude that universal moral standards do not exist because it is impossible for everybody everywhere to believe in common ideas; the world’s cultures are far too diverse for this. Furthermore, to say that universal moral standards exist would imply that these moral standards transcend human existence, and apply to any rational creatures that exist anywhere in the universe. Although we do not know of any creatures to exist beyond the boundaries of earth, I think that it would be arrogant to say that any human moral standards would apply to these beings as well. In my opinion, the beliefs of different societies, or extra terrestrial beings, cannot be said to be “correct” or “incorrect” because this would imply that an objective ethical truth exists.
There are many factors, like self-interest, morality, and knowledge, that motivate the will to truth and power is only one of the many and cannot be used as the overarching factor. I share a common ground with Lynch in disagreeing with Rorty’s approach that there is no such thing as truth therefore we should stop worrying about it entirely. This deflationist approach comes off as rather nonchalant to me because it encourages people to not care or take interest in something that they believe to not exist. I also agree with Lynch’s argument pertaining to particularism. Normative judgments are not independent entities that can be used solely for the purpose of determining what is good or bad.
Moreover it doesn’t leave us with any truths to the validity of their actions. For a culture relativist to contend that there are no universal truths, and then say that the truth to why people act the way they do is because of where they are from and also how they were raised, is no doubt a contradictory statement. It would be stating that the universal truth is there are no universal truths universally, which is a universal truth and no doubt contradicting.
However, Kant’s perception of what constitutes morality was highly criticized and often discounted. Kant, perhaps better than any other philosopher attempting to address morality and duty, was able to see past the simplistic interpretation that by doing well for others a person could achieve morality and efficiently commit to their “duties’. According to Younkins, “Kant holds that the pursuit of a person’s own happiness is of no moral worth whatsoever” This is because Kant felt that in order to be truly moral a person’s actions must be absent of personal desire, gain or consideration. In that end, Kant, according to Younkins posited that in order to achieve morality the decisions to act must be 1) not meant to attain
He then attempts to support this claim with a variety of biased and unverifiable... ... middle of paper ... ...ative communication; and that humans are social creatures with an unrelenting need to convey their emotions and experiences. Making these assumptions, we could see the supposed validity of his argument that the purpose of the site cannot be fulfilled in its currently proposed state because of human nature when it comes to romantic relationships and ending them. However, his argument is invalid. We can imagine a scenario where DDHG-DisHarmony users never began a romantic relationship with one another, or where such a relationship has not yet ended. His argument is also unsound, as many of his claims are based on his personal bias and opinion, and are unverifiable in the real world.
This brings us to the possible tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. Don Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I will argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the reader about Hume’s aims as a philosopher, and that Hume’s Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critic’s extrapolations.