“Ethical Language is Subjective”. Discuss. (35) Subjectivity or Objectivity in the way that ethical language is used is considered within the broader study of meta-ethics, often described as a second order moral discourse, which considers the meaning of ethical terms such as good, bad, right or wrong. To say that ethical language is subjective is to suggest that there does not exist an objective or universally accepted understanding of, for example, goodness and that is merely reflects an individual’s opinion or viewpoint. AJ Ayer in his book “language, truth and Logic” outlines what is commonly called the “emotivist” approach to ethical language.
G.E Moore begins by rejecting ethical naturalism, the belief that ethical knowledge is based on empirical evidence. ethical naturalism observes that physical properties such as rough, smooth can be discovered through observations in the world around us; in the same way moral properties such as wicked or kind can be defined through observation. Moore felt to define an ethical statement as a factual one, is to confuse goodness with some other non- moral property. For example, to describe a knife as good is to confuse the term good with the term sharp. From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’.
This is the issue that is at stake with both readings of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics.” Hardin’s essay that is serious in tone, while Swift’s offers similar views appears to be poking fun by starting at in a serious tone at first glance but in reality is far from it. One illustration of this similarity can be found in the objections each makes in their actual quite differing arguments. Hardin argues against the ideas of “kind-hearted” and “well-meaning” liberals, and Swift says, “let no man talk to me of other expedients…” Jonathan Swift’s essay, “A Modest Proposal,” describes a satirically “fair, cheap, and easy method” to address the great amount of starving children in Ireland by fattening up these undernourished children and feed them to Ireland’s rich land-owners, but Garrett Hardin‘s concept is moral obligation is not a one way sacrificing to others; however, it is built on a foundation of sharing and cooperating. Throughout the article, Swift makes a motion for the prevention of the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden to their
Yes, It's the great importante for many company to minimise the impact that their products have on the environment ,but it's totally unacceptable for companies to make false claims. Many consumers think that a lot of companies pretended to be green just to charge higher
Company Q in the scenario provided has a very poor attitude towards social responsibility because though they provide some basic aspects like Economic and Legal they fall short in Ethical and Philanthropic aspects. We will examine ways that Company Q can improve those lacking aspects. The first potential improvement is in the store closing situation of the scenario where Company Q closed two stores in high crime rate areas. Company Q has the right to be profitable and if they report that these stores are losing money then they have every right to close those stores but they made no efforts in the Philanthropic aspect of social responsibility. Company Q could have made investments in the local community that would have potentially improved the community thus decreasing the crime rate.
Question 1 Utilitarianism Ethics It would seem in this instance if “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” was to broadcast the prank, it would not promote the greater good. The greater good could include the company maintaining their public perception of ethical behaviour and being compassionate to all individuals. The negatives could be that the radio station might feel restricted in what they can and cannot do, and this may be another indicator of that fact. Specifically, how they cannot share a humorous prank on air. By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial.
If this is an acceptable form of payment, how might you ensure that it is ethically sound and that no power differential exists between you and the client? According to licensing boards, Consumer protection agencies, risk management experts, and ethics committees, fair exchange bartering (all bartering for that matter) is largely frowned upon, as there is the potential to create power disparity (power differential) between the councilor and client (Zur, 2011). Moreover, there is a heightened potential for disclosure concerns, boundary
Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way? Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, by using the lowest cost to obtain the biggest profit out of it. However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice human life in exchange of paying a lower production costs. Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die.
However they would have notify customers of the use of the technology in their stores, as underage people may wish to avoid the stores which could lead to a decrease in sales from the stores who use the system. The storage of customer details may also provide opportunity for the company to benefit, as it may allow them to send customer advertisements or flyers, promoting their business and special offers analysis. The convenience of the technology is vast, but the initially costs as well as maintenance may be large, and to justify the use of the technology it would have to be ensured that it is worthwhile, depending on the size and revenue of the store. Also if the technology was not reliable it could lead to further large costs for the company and would be very inconvenient to employees and possibly customers, possibly leading to a decrease in sales
Disposal techniques such as burning and using dumpsites only push the environment further down the drain (Logomasini, 1); since such waste disposal methods bring about environmental concerns as well. Governments have recycling directives in place but companies and individuals are still having the liberty to recycle the waste on their own, and this is where the government directives get overlooked. Disposing biodegradable waste is not as challenging as other waste that naturally decomposes leaving organic benefits to the environment. That being the case, therefore, it means that non-biodegradable waste poses a massive challenge to conservation efforts making it essential to come up with an effective and comprehensive recycling mechanism. This exploratory argumentative paper will delve deep into the case of why recycling the non0biodegradeable waste should be made mandatory by the government for all private individuals and corporate entities to comply with.