Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them. This creates a paradox. In order to explain this seemingly inescapable contradiction, Nagel uses the concept of two viewpoints that correlate to both sides of the argument. Depending on which viewpoint you take, either moral luck or the Control Principle can hold true for a certain situation. In this paper, I will argue that, though Nagel's theory makes sense, there are still holes in such an argument.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so cannot be meaningful as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are meaningful as they are about facts and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of Meta ethics which holds the belief that ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way.
The labelling theory consists of the fact that external people for example higher middle class or forms of authority, labels other members in society as being criminals or being deviant. The labelling theory works like this: a form of authority or even common people instinctively have a stereotype or put certain members of society into certain categories therefore labelling people as being criminals or having deviant behaviour and therefore this makes the members of society being labelled, commit to a self fulfilling prophecy whereby they end up acting out what they have been pre-judged as. Interpretivists accept this concept is highly useful and valid as it is qualitative. However, positivists believe it is low in reliability and usefulness as data is not numerical and cannot be compared, or even that there is no data at all. Being a criminal or deviant could be seen to be a social construct and therefore this may mean that you could question what criminal activity is and whether this social construct is even right since it has been constructed by members of the society.
Comparing these two contrasting views on morals is not as easy as one would think. It could be argued that the comparison is either right or wrong. However, this is not the case. Comparing two colors in the shade of red is not like comparing blue and yellow. The same can be said when speaking of a relativist and an absolutist.
We are responsible for noticing and monitoring our own emotions. Right to make sure that opportunities for lawsuits are minimized. (Incorrect) Because the legal process can be both properly used as well as abused, operating from a place of protection is not useful. We cannot guarantee what people will or will not do. Right to expect that processes will be followed.
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.
Ethics Awareness Inventory which is where I did my assessment which supports my principles that human beings are entitled to basic rights; consequently, actions have to respect the rights of others. Someone who does not respect other people is not respected person. This person has to treat others the way he would like to be treated. As individuals we suppose to have the right to make our own decision, and if those decisions affect others in a harm way we already know there are consequences for those who attend to break the laws they could have everything in their own way regardless of whom pays the consequence. Those unethical behaviors we could not accept, because that will have affected in us all.
According to the retribution theory punishing offenders have its advantages which may gain from illegal acts. Supporters of retribution may argue that it is wrong to let the guilty party escape punishment. To allow the guilty to avoid punishment is to deny the dignity of choosing their action. Retribution does not allow for punishment of innocent parties or for the discipline of those responsible for their