The two dominant theories of morality are relativism and absolutism. The former is the position which states that moral propositions do not reflect objective or universal moral truths but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or circumstantial conditions. The latter is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. The theory claims that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of the context of the act. Therefore, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the action.
By examining the views on abortion of Marry Anne Warren, this paper will argue that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that early fetuses, though they are genetically human, are not persons (members of the moral community). In this paper I will introduce Warren’s argument on why abortion is morally permissible followed by a counter argument by Don Marquis. Furthermore, this paper will analyze why Warren’s argument is more persuasive than the counter argument offered by Marquis followed by criticisms of the analysis. Lastly, I will discuss why the objections to the analysis are unconvincing. Warren beings her argument by acknowledging that abortion “…usually entails the death of a fetus.
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.
Did Slavery Cause the Civil War? The claim of historians that the civil war in America was an outcome of slavery is true, as it was the issue of abolition of slavery that was considered not acceptable by Southern states of the country, as their major plantation and trade was there because of African slaves. According to the people of the South, North was trying to eliminate slavery with unjustified reasons. The Southerners regarded the Northerners as their enemies because, they thought that the government of North was interested in subjugating Southern States by ending slavery and by given equal rights to the slaves. There were eleven States of America that were slave states, as they held slaves in a large ratio; they named themselves as “Confederates of America” while the other side was named as “The Union” (Valley of the shadow).
It’s important to understand that slavery wasn’t because of racism but because the pursuit of profit. Slavery was by all definitions unpaid labor which helped build our new world (D’Souza, pg. 467). It’s not so much that race defined slavery relations, but that slavery defined race relations, “Racism developed and spread in America as an ideology to rationalize the enslavement and exploitation of black by a white master class” (D’Souza, pg. 467).
It was noted that while this may be the case we still feel obliged to obey the law. I believe that legitimate laws, depending on your definitions of legitimate, are not all in place because of moral rules. A portion of them definitely are, the laws such as murder and rape go without saying that they based on moral requirements but the smaller, less dramatic laws can hardly be seen in a moral light, such as the specific laws that you must follow if you wish to be married. Natural law theory has a unique way of explaining the conflict between moral autonomy and our obligation to the law, the theorists say that particular argument is merely a superficial one. They claim that there is a mysterious universal moral code that runs through all of us, no matter what colour or creed.
With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral. Within the Principle of Liberty, Mill also claims that it is not acceptable for society to put restrictions on an individual’s conduct, for reasons that they feel would be in the best interest of that person. The majority only has the right to develop laws that confine the conduct of individuals with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of others; otherwise they would be obstructing that person’s right to individuality. Mill believes that everyone is entitled to certain moral rights that cannot be denied. Every member of society is entitled to rights of security of his person and property, as well as basic liberties such as freedom of opinion and the right to live his life as he so chooses.
2. Examples: a) ”the notion of duty” A good will is a will that is for duty and what you do is only moral if it is done for duty. Doing something with duty being your only reason to act is morally right, and it does not have to be enjoyable only morally right. b) ”I would express thus, Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will.
Ethical Egoism We will be discussing the strengths and weaknesses of ethical egoism, but before we begin we first must understand what ethical egoism is and what is involved. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others.