Similarly in the case of adopting subjectivism, as long as the person committing the action thought this action was morally permissible then that statement could not be made. If we adopted ethical nihilism, statements like this would not be able to have any truth value. Since ethical nihilism states that there are no correct answers whatsoever we could not state that something was wrong and give it a truth factor. In order to do this there must be some correct alternative but nihilism states there is no such
According to his theory, his morality is right. If we do not have a reference point for good, then it means we can’t compare and contrast our moral facts. An individual person’s reference point cannot be used as a source objective moral fact, because it is not going to work for the greater number of people. In this case, individual relativism claims about the source of objective moral fact it 's not true. Others like a cultural relativist claim society determines moral facts.
In either case, we do not have free will and hence should not be held morally responsible for our actions. However, the fault is this: it is unclear whether his idea of moral responsibility is the correct one as he fails to demonstrate this. This will therefore offset his argument, because of the possibility of many views of moral responsibility, which I will discuss
This is indeed true, however a religious believer could argue that they are morally free because they believe that... ... middle of paper ... ...ng their moral responsibility and this is exactly the opposite of what religion believes, so it is self contradicting and again the link is weakened. In conclusion it is clear that Professor Chung has a strong argument against the link between religion and morality. He points out on more than one occasion that religious moral codes are not only impractical and often lead to immoral acts, but are self contradicting and often ignored by religious believers. Moreover he also points out that a person does not have to be religious to be moral, and therefore how can religion shape morality if some people are not religious but still moral. This clearly shows that morality comes from human nature and not religion, and therefore his argument is very effective, and in my opinion disproves the link of morality and religion.
Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum
When it comes to morality this is something we cannot enforce, because there are some values which looks like immoral to you but it might not be in others views. Even if there are some common values, which are considered, immoral in all societies but still force is no solution because moral values cannot be taught anyway, only way we adopt a moral value is from inside of man by seeing other people observing it in surrounding. This happens by persons own will, just like a habit, that we do not choose a habit, it just becomes a part of ourselves unknowingly. To me, enforcing a moral value on somebody is like extracting it spirit from it, and it will lose its originality leaving an empty shell, which people will put over to pretend to observe that moral value which you enforced on them. In my opinion, this is a natural reaction because man has rebellious nature, which we cannot change.
Individual relativism is a part of the relativism theory. Individual relativism is the theory that every single individual has their own set of moral laws, but individuals do not have the right to tell other individuals what they should value as moral or immoral. Most people’s morals are actually based on themselves, their upbringing, their culture, their genetics. Strengths behind individual relativism is that it is very open-minded to other people’s opinions about morals and ethics. Another strength is that relativists aren’t so quick to judge others based on their moral views.
They believe that when you choose the natural choice, you are choosing the right choice. The natural law theory can branch off into the divine command theory. The divine command th... ... middle of paper ... ...less important things before God in our daily life and our spoken recognitions, are a few of the things that God deems as unnatural and they should not be done without major consequences. The theory of Kant conflicts the most with my moral beliefs. This theory disagrees with how I believe because it does not have any connections to a person’s moral character.
What we have to do is discover what they are.”1 The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean that morals are relative, all that it... ... middle of paper ... ... suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles.
Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.