So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making decisions.
That is, your particular charact... ... middle of paper ... ...essed for those decisions. Nagel constructs a number of compelling arguments in attacking Kantian morality, but in the end he simply misses the point. While numerous influences and external factors may affect the decision of a person, it is still the duty of that person to find the information that is correct and lead himself to the correct moral decision. If Nagel were correct, we would be unable to apply moral evaluations to anyone. This dissolution of morality looms over us threateningly until we realize that its strength is renewed with our own deeper focus.
My personal view is that it is wrong to disobey authority, unless I am in a situation where I believe it would be completely wrong to continue, and I question how far I will go before I reach a point where there is shame for what I have done. Though I recognize that authority might be more knowledgable about a subject than their inferior, I still support that different people are going to have different types of moral wrongs and rights, and should be
Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with. Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas. After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to them. First, there is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their "conscientious conviction." When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind.
We all have ideals and morals, but we are guided by them, not bound by them. Yes, I believe that lying undermines the human quest of truth and is a deplorable act, but I have lied. We all end up as hypocrites. 'Tis fate. The idea is to try to embody your principles.
I will delve into the moral issues that people have when they think about deceit. My personal definition of deceit is when someone manipulates another person into believing what they are saying is the truth even if it may not be. In this paper I will argue that there are different degrees of deceit that don’t always break someone’s trust. The evidence I provide will show that our definition of deceit in our Western culture is impaired. It will show people who believe that deceit is morally wrong and it can only bring about distrust may need to re-evaluate their definition of deceit.
Struggling with wanting a higher grade or gaining the approval of others can be a factor in that decision. However we all have to face the consequences of our actions. I prefer to make errors on my exams and endeavor to learn from them. I believe that learning from mistakes is part of gaining wisdom which is only earned through time and experience. In addition if the cheater wants to someday gain the trust of others.
By feeling that only my way is the right way it can lose valuable opinions that others can bring to a situation. Part B2a: This risk area should be addressed and improved on to make better ethical decisions. These are the steps I will take to improve this area: • Be open-minded. I will work to be more open-minded about others opinions even if I do not share in those
‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14). Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position.
"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you." This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.