The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. 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.
Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists. If it did, you could evaluate other ethical systems meaningfully. A moral relativist would ask such questions as ‘what do we mean by wrong?’ when making a decision on something deemed wrong. Relativism is in direct contrast with absolute morality that is deontological, referring to looking at the action in itself. A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally.
Explain moral relativism. (25 marks) The theory of moral relativism is an ethical approach to situation ethics which asserts that there are no universally true moral principles, as all moral principles held by a person or society are relative to their circumstances, culture and religion - this means that there are no actions which are and will always be wrong. Instead, if an action seems good to you then for you it is morally right and vice versa, however there is no way that we are able to objectively identify which opinion is the correct one. A soft form of moral relativism is Cultural Relativism which states that moral codes differ from culture to culture or from religion to religion, for example some cultures believe polygamy or arranged marriages to be morally right, whereas a catholic society would believe that monogamy is the only moral way of life. Subjective Relativism on the other hand is a much more extreme stem of moral relativism as it is based on the view of an individual alone and therefore then can be absolutely no debate as all values are relative.
Still no matter how much one may argue, terrorism and child warriors are wrong and always will be. I agree with the issues that Lenn Goodman touched on in the “Some Moral Minima” article. I feel that the world should be on one accord no matter your race, gender, religion. These issues would change anyone’s view, especially if it was done to their family or friends. Sometimes it has to hit home for most to understand; but why wait until then, it should never happen because it was and will always be
However, passiveness is a mere possibility for view pertaining to ethical psychology (Berk, 2010). Researchers find it necessary to distinguish when the more deliberative progressions operate, and how each relates to one another; such is the case with this week's scenario, Jane and the assigning moral reasoning through her cognition responses (Walden, 2012; Berk, 2010). An individual may have to decide to tell the truth; even if the person is risking hurting someone's feelings with a white lie. For example, if one was to clean out their closet, they would in turn, make a moral choice, whether to give the toy away or make a profit by selling them. Piaget, Kohlberg, and Gilligan believe the reasoning behind the rationale is what determines a person's level of principled development (Walden, 2012).
For the sake of time and space, the definition of two interpreting educators is referenced. “… ethics (we will define as) behavioral standards – a set of principles that defines what is judged appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong” (Alcorn & Humphrey, 2007, p.301). Because this particular situation is not specifically mentioned in the interpreting Code of Ethics, it is necessary for the interpreter to use their own personal morals and ethical judgment in order to decide which course of action or inaction to take. In order to make this decision, critical thinking is needed. A variety of viewpoints need to be considered, and there are steps to consider.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
Simon has written this book as a guide to focus on andamplify the things that do work. He doesn’t not aim to upset the solutions offered by others. Most of the answers we get, when based on sound evidence, are perfectly valid. However, if we’re starting with the wrong questions, if we don’t understand the cause, then even the right answers will always steer us wrong eventually and the truth is revealed to us. The Why: the driving motivation, like a cause or belief that inspires you to act The How: the guiding principles or specific actions you take to make your Why become a reality The What: the tangible results from your principles in action, like proof that you’re acting on your Why Sinek’s theory revolves around the model of the “Golden Circle”.
Duty theory is a moral theory, especially connected with Kant, according to what actions are right or wrong because of their inherent content, and the motive from which they are done. Stealing is wrong principally because we can't make taking property a universal law. In general, philosophers usually call duty-based ethics deontology. It focuses on the act and not its consequence. The morally binding nature of a deontological norm derives from the person’s obligation to perform some act in some specified manner, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes it is not.
Moral Development The term morality, according to Shaffer, 1993 (Gross, 2000 pg.547) means “a set of principles or ideals that help the individual to distinguish right from wrong and to act on this distinction.” Morality is important to society, as it would not function effectively unless there is some agreement of what is right and wrong. There are many underlying processes and environmental factors, which limit or promote social, cognitive and moral development in children. In modern society, television could be considered to be one of the major influences on a child's moral development. There are three approaches to moral development; the cognitive approach, the psychodynamic approach and the social learning theory. The Cognitive-Developmental approach of Piaget and Kohlberg studies how children become more able to reason morally and make moral judgements, whereas the Freud's psychodynamic approach is more concerned with the development of the conscience and moral feelings such as guilt and anxiety.