A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives. Hard determinism is the teaching that denies humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause. It removes moral responsibility for our actions. Hard determinists would therefore agree with the statement above, and will believe that God does infact know what ethical decisions we will make as he has already perceived it. This idea links to predestination in the fact that it believes everything in the universe- even human action- has a cause which precedes it.
If moral judgments are solely based upon pure reason then they must necessarily be either right or wrong, true or false. This would imply that principles of moral judgments are equivalent to a mathematical formula in which our answers are eternal and cannot be subject to change. If they are based in our passions alone, then they cannot be said to ever have a constant outcome. There can be no disputing our moral judgments because our preferences cannot be disputed; they simply are what they are. Moral judgments will vary as much as one individual varies from another individual.
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
It also puts limits on God’s power. According to the definition of a theistic God, God is omnipotent. If God is all powerful then he should be able to command whatever he wants but by saying that morality is independent of God would mean that God is subject to the rules of morality (Fisher, 359). All in all the main issues with the Autonomy Thesis are that it would only be reasonable if one was not considering the existence of a theistic
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self.
What I believe that the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own conscious. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand. Firstly, I believe that independence can not be the definition of what your government says is independent. If you go by what the government says is independent than why not go by Chinas definition of independence, or by the communists party’s definition of independence. If you are being governed than you are not truly independent.