At the same to time I think it right to help the less fortunate and to recognize every person as they are, a human being. While I believe that every human being should have the pursuit of happiness and fulfill their self-interests, one should also show concern for our fellow man. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents should do what is in their own self-interest. Ayn Rand believes that this doctrine is one that every man should follow for fear of becoming a society that lives for others and only others, like the dystopian society in her novel Anthem. While ethical egoism sounds appealing to me, I do not believe that is my only duty.
Thus, we ought to treat each other with respect, when * (i) we ensure that our interactions with them are purely voluntary * (ii) we ensure that our interactions with them are mutually beneficial or are just and fair * (iii) we ensure that we take account of their needs, desires, and interests Morality is more than the promotion of the good, is about the quality of human interaction which is the attitudes we should have toward ourselves and one another. Kant provide us an ideal of human relationship. Kants’ FH requires us to treat all rational humans as ends, never merely as m means to an end. First, if everyone follow this rule, the society will become very harmony. Because whatever people do, they need to consider the action are respect other people’s purpose or not.
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
James Rachels’ on Normative Cultural Relativism Every culture has its own customs, traditions and beliefs that dictate the actions of its citizens. Cultural relativism states that although practices and ethical beliefs differ from society to society, it must be accepted as good, relative to each respective culture’s beliefs and moral code. Rachels believes that an act that may be frowned upon in one culture may in fact be totally acceptable in another. The theory of Cultural Relativism puts in action the idea of what people believe is morally right and how it relates to the culture that it is practiced in. Morals concern what is right and wrong.
This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering. Surely there are other ways to create moral development other than suffering. For example, preparing for exams or playing a sport creates challenges and problems to overcome which would result in growth. The idea of universal salvation is also questionable. If everyone makes it to heaven, what is the motivation to be moral?
The idea is important for Locke because I believe it is sort of a foundation for the whole Locke’s philosophy. All people are free to direct their own affairs and property within the confines of natural law and the state of nature embodies the law of nature, and exists according to its principles. The state of nature is one of harmonious peace, and this peace is the result of natural law. Question#2: What is Locke’s conception of natural law? How is it related to civil law?
Explain Moral Relativism Moral Relativism argues the claim that there are no universally valid rules for all people at all times, thus implying there are no intrinsic rights and wrongs. This results in Morality being relative to the individual, to their culture and their age group. In contrary Moral Absolutism is the antonym to the theory that morality is relative. Kant for example was not a moral relativist; he held the belief that we had ‘categorical imperatives’ which were always right. He believed as Absolutists believe today , we should be able to apply moral rules to everyone without making allowances for different people or circumstance , thus suggesting laws should be ‘universalisable’ .
For example, in some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, while in other cultures this would be seen to be immoral, and even a crime. Different cultures express different moral codes of conduct and relative ethics allows all the different circumstances and cultures to be put into prospective when analyzing whether an action would be intrinsically good or bad. In relative ethics, it avoids judging one culture against another as it is tolerant. To a relativist, there are no universal truths, and because of this then there are no objective standards by which one culture can judge another. No one culture is better than another.
Natural Law provides a helpful response to ethical issues in business. Discuss Natural law could be considered to be a helpful response to any ethical dilemma because it provides clear and absolute principles for people to follow. However, an issue with this is whether having one ‘rule’ for business is helpful, due to the diverse nature of the business world and the wide variety of ethical concerns that may arise. Natural Law is anthropocentric and considers that the main priority in life is for humans to fulfil their God given purpose and so it would decide upon ethical dilemmas on the basis of whether it helped or hindered a person in fulfilling their telos. The fundamental principle of Natural Law is to do good and to avoid evil – a difficulty with this would be that this often requires a value judgement as it may not be clear where the ‘good’ is to be found.
Then there are people that believe there is a right and wrong but sometimes you can do wrong if it’s for a good reason. The dictionary has a name for these two types of people: Moral absolutist who believes in the clear line and that it should never be crossed, and moral relativists who believe in the line but believe it can be crossed only in certain situations. In American Vision and Values moral absolutism can be clearly defined and making moral judgments is good and necessary for human decency and freedom (Rauchut 2008, p. 320). For example, a moral absolutist would believe that killing is wrong even if that person killed in self defense. There are consequence for breaking laws and a clear choice between moral conflicts.