In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial. As this would be seen by the radio station as maintaining their professional integrity, it would avoid the possibility of impacting their relationships with multiple stakeholders negatively. From the positives and negatives discussed, it would seem under utilitarianism ethics the prank would not be ethical to broadcast. Kantian Ethics The decision to not air the prank would not be delayed under Kantian ethics. As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed.
“Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior (Penslar, Robin, L., 1995). The fact that this ethical theory does not consider a person’s change in moral character; it is one of its weaknesses. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the good for all. “According to this theory an individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population.” (2013) Utilitarianism, in terms of ethics, is an individual trying to make a positive change for a larger group, and morally would guide themselves in decision in regard to the group they are associated with or belong to. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism which a person performs the acts that benefit most of the people regardless to a person’s feeling or the laws, and rule utilitarianism which takes the law
There is a danger that if counsellors minimise cultural differences they are likely to impose the larger multicultural groups similarities upon the smaller multicultural groups and uphold one group as being more important than the other. Over-emphasising the differences may result in difficulty finding common ground upon which to build the counselling relationship. A counsellor should maintain a balance by recognising the importance of the similarities and differences, and understand them, build a good communication and counselling relationship. (Pederson 1994) Without cultural awareness counsellors may engage in faulty information, processing that they may limit the client to fair counselling:- i.e. Asians show now or little affections in counselling, but may have symptoms like headaches instead.
Meanwhile, Staples and his theory that “….the notion of a color blind society, with no need for affirmative action, is a fantasy at this point,” may be a little inaccurate. Though it seems as though affirmative action may last forever there may be a time in which Clegg is correct. There may just be a time when things other than being qualified just will not matter anymore. The color of your skin, and the masculine or feminine way that we carry ourselves will only be an asset that we carry, and our knowledge will be of which we possess. In the Postscript there was valid point about how Staples “…proponents of affirmative action policies must confront the fact that these programs are not applied properly in
vi. Disadvantages: Patients could not integrate as well as preferred and therefore would this could be harmful for the community and the stigma would not change. II. Ideological Principles: Utilitarian ethics and Virtue ethics f. Utilitarian ethics values the community and society as a whole over the individual and state that “well being is measured according to what produces the most possible, for the most recipients
It is about giving equal access and opportunities and getting rid of discrimination and intolerance. 1.1d Discrimination is a preconceived attitude towards members of a particular group formed only on the basis of their membership of that group that leads to less favorable or bad treatment of that person. The attitude is often resistant to change even in the light of new information. It is essential that you do not allow your prejudices to influence the way you work with individuals. 1.2 Direct discrimination could take place if individuals are treated less favourably or given a lower standard of service than other individuals because of their gender, race, ethnicity, culture, disability, religion, sexuality, class, mental health and age.
Such situation of continuous “body celebration” hurts rather than enriches ethnic identity. The Body-Identity becomes a subject matter of/for contemplation and celebration rather than a “real” and an everyday experience. Thus, the celebration of the Body-Identity turns out to be one effective strategy of containment. However, I suggest that such negative abuse of the “body” is not all the story. Cotemporary sociologists, cultural critics and race relations activists such Stuart Hall, Mary Douglas, and Erving Goffman argue that body celebrations can be also empowering.
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.