For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. 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.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
Oddly enough, with this theory, it is prohibited to tell lies or commit suicide because that is morally wrong within itself and does not support the universal good of a rational decision, but if people acted in line with their duty to the universal law of their society, the results were of no consequence (Butts & Rich, 2008, Chapter 1). Kant stated that a person should act without emotion and with a complete sense of duty to serve the morally universal law of society and that the intention is of more importance than the result – consequences of the actions do not matter (Jasper, 1962). The theory of deontology follows this thought by setting demands that humans act at all times as though their actions would be universally accepted into an overall rule for society. He believed that duty and law are always one unit and cannot be separated and that with this duty to law, we shape our world. My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete.
The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows. In subjectivism, to say something is bad is to say one has a bad feeling about it. As one can not be mistaken about their feelings, one can not be mistaken about moral judgements. For those who have encountered someone with very objectionable moral viewpoints however, perhaps violent homophobia or racism, it seems obtuse to suppose such people to be as equally moral as a loving and accepting person. The argument concludes with the claim that, despite the supposed infallibility, people are often mistaken in their moral judgements.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
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.
You are claiming that I am older than you yet are you wiser than I am in acknowledging the fact that people, who do harm, harm those whom they are closest to whereas good people do good things to their neighbors, but I am ignorant to understand this. This means that if I make one of my associate’s evil, I run the risk of being harmed by his evil intentions. Overall you are claiming that I am deliberately putting myself into danger. This Meletus is not true and I don’t believe you and I don’t think anyone else will. I do not corrupt the young, I do so unwillingly or you are lying.
If society has values set in place, it has to be for a reason. The reason would be wasted if we decide not to install them into the youth of today. How do you feel about cheating? It is universal that it is wrong, but if its not enforced on the children and explained how morally and ethically wrong it is. Will they ever know that forcing yourself sexually on another person is right or wrong?