I would consider myself a Moral Objectivist. I would consider my self a objectivist for many reason, For example Moral Relativism defines that an all beliefs and customs and ethics are relative to an individuals within his or her own social context. First, Moral Objectivism implies that what is wrong or right does not necessarily depend on what an individual thinks is right or wrong( ). To many people they think that “ Different cultures have different moral codes”(). To many that’s the key understanding to morality, However in ethics some say it is in actuality a myth.
To begin with, due to the moral codes are different from different cultures, relativist suggested at last that we should not judge other culture and what they do, which implies to all the people from different culture and believes, which means they all accept that judging other people is wrong. This point makes “tolerance” became a “universal truth” that individuals should all agree with and even relativist wanted people to follow it. Thus, it contradicts what they say about there is no “universal truth” that every one believes and follows. From the similar point, if we all think the culture is equal and there is no right or wrong either good or bad about any culture, why should we “tolerate” some cultures? From William’s point of view, if a culture think tolerance is wrong, from the standpoint that “ the culture is right for a given society” (William’s) is right to think tolerance is wrong.
In his argument Trippett challenges the assumption that not only violent crime breaks the law, in addition small crimes could break the law as much as major. In his view he firmly believes that people who aren’t law breakers should stay the same and keep abiding the law. Ultimately, Trippett asserts that when society breaks laws in can have a detriment upon others. One of the main implications is younger people in a possibility can be influenced to break laws and they can influence more and more people and that can cause a big problem in society. Furthermore Trippett’s argument is agreeable and has strong evidence.fgdfgdsdgfgfdgyrtsdhtrdxhbtrfxnsr One can consider themselves a non-law breaker; however there is a slight possibility that one may have broken a “minor” law themselves without even knowing.
King emphasizes the fact that one must follow just laws to avoid anarchy and respect the rights of other human beings. However, he and others have a “moral responsibility” to fight against unjust laws for the benefit of society. He states that individual “who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” as they are adjusting the basic intent of the law to realign with its moral law through the form of civil disobedience. It is important to note that this view is not ‘new’ or radical according to King. Legality is a very arbitrary term within a historical context as King points out that what the Nazi’s did was legal while what the “Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal.
Utilitarianism was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again.
If you see what they do obviously they give negative feedback and that is not right. Create as many cultures as you want but they need to be doing the right thing. Heaven’s gate is simply based off from belief and they cause no harm. There is nothing wrong there for what they believe and is based on simply from choice if whether you should listen or not. Cultures have beliefs for their own ways of life, but so do people.
Tolerance is an important virtue to have in order to keep peace and avoid conflict. If countries fought every time there was a slight disagreement, then the whole world would be devastated with war. Both Matt Lawrence and Peter Kreeft address this issue and discuss how moral objectivism doesn’t mean intolerance. While moral objectivists may believe there is a standard of morals everyone should live by it doesn’t mean that they will force their beliefs upon everyone else. “And only the moral objectivist can maintain that there is something intrinsically good about respecting other people’s freedom and tolerating the diversity of beliefs” (Lawrence 111).
I believe the Utilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, on account of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. The Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account of everyone's sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moral or ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, the Relativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at this time.
Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States.
Instead of understand why some people do bad things, well-behaved people know exactly why they don’t do so. So they use all type of method to show others what keeps them away from violate the law such as their dignity, beliefs, value and relationships. This group of people uses their own behaviors and reactions to certain behaviors to help reduce the crime. In my opinion, sometimes social may also cause problems to society, because of people always want others have the same standard and opinion upon a certain behavior or statement, but people are always different from each other, therefore sometimes the abuse of the power of social control and deeply misunderstanding may occur. There are three most widely used way to exert social control in my point of view: Set role model and ethical standard, use judgment and reaction to make people feel the certain way (include sense of guilt and shame), use reward and punishment to control others’ behavior and lead people to become well-behaved person and stay away from crime.