In simpler language, it means to aim for perfection. On the surface, it sounds nice, but all this ignores the basic human trait, the one shared across cultures, languages, and races: imperfection. To be human is to be errant. Thus, the dreams of idealists often get dashed and projects they attempt often end either in failure or at least "less than they could have been." On the other hand, realism means "the inclination towards literal truth and pragmatism" (ibid).
Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth. Finally, this essay will evaluate the entertainment factor of torture as wrong, based on the argument that a transcultural moral standard of what is right and wrong does indeed exist and how and why this argument is a convincing one indeed. Moral relativism is the theory that what is considered virtuous conduct and right and wrong varies between different cultural contexts and societal situations and is nonexistent in the general abstract. The disagreement argument accounts for the seemingly obvious fact that different cultures have different moral beliefs leading to moral disagreements demonstrating that morality is merely a product of personal or cultural opinion. However, while moral agreements may never be reached fully and are difficult to establish, mere disagreement does not mean there is no absolute truth to pursue.
The primary precepts are a set of tenants that are vague in their interpret-ability on how they are to be executed. They are discovered through the use of reason and as such are 'Teleological' or only focus on the consequence rather than the action. However the secondary precepts are derived from the primary precepts and are very similar to the ten commandments or the 'Decalogue' (found in the Bible in Exodus 20). These are very absolutist and are therefore 'Deontological' which means that the cause for concern is the action and not the consequence. This is beneficial to a scoeity as they would be able to establish common laws and rules.
Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest. This is why Kant uses his ‘categorical imperative’ as it simply is “I must do ‘x’” because there is no possibility of conflicting with self interest. The categorical imperative also has two parts; universal law and ends and means. This determines if the action you are considering to
Next on the basis of James Rachel’s argument against ethical egoism will try to answer the question posed. This essay will also discuss the common sense view is the most appropriate way to act in most of the cases. Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, a theory which states how one should behave. It states that promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it.
The realist outlook, in my opinion, is more from a “present day” or “short term” point of view. Liberalism, on the other hand, seeks to establish perfection through democracy, believing that this goal is perfectly attainable through progress. This outlook is could be an unwillingness to face harsh realities. Instead of focusing on the here and now, it seems that liberalism would avoid it all together and focus on “what could be”. This long-sightedness, however convenient, seems like it would be extremely dangerous because it would be easier to lose control of the situation at hand.
And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the developed world’s ideal of human rights. Marriage is not just an institution, but also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. Symbols are important; they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self.
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
The adversary system is characterized by party control of the investigation and presentation of evidence and argument, and by a passive decisionmaker who merely listens to both sides and renders a decision based on what she has heard. An ideology has developed that seeks to justify the adversary system, but the adherents have had some difficulty settling on the most appropriate justification. The current ideology extols the adversary system primarily as the best system for protecting individual dignity and autonomy, but some theorists continue to profess the original ideology, which says that adversarial presentation and argument are the best way to arrive at the truth. (Sward, 1989) The most cited assumptions of the proponents of the early