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.
This means that even if it was his responsibility to deliver the order he would not have done so because, as it also states in Source 3, he is headstrong so he is self-willed, portraying that Nolan is to blame for the disaster of the Charge of the Light Brigade by refusing to follow orders. Source 2 implies that Lucan was to blame and not Nolan, however, the man who wrote the
The crews on both ships were stubborn and didn’t react until it was too late. The stubbornness and negligence of both ships is what caused the Halifax Explosion and one was not more at fault that the other. Through all this destruction and devastation people have come to realise that rules are there to protect them and that they should be obeyed at all times. As a result of this fatal collision captains are much more cautious and follow the rules of safe passage in the
He will be judged by those who know him in the real world, and if a higher power exists, will also be judged in the spiritual world as well. An unethical action performed by a man with a religious belief is the most unlikely event that would occur out of the four possible scenarios because he will most likely not place himself in a situation where he needs to make a decision that could potentially be considered unethical. If this situation were to occur, he could simply confess his sins and be forgiven on the spot, avoiding judgment once the confession is made in full and pity is recognized in self. “It seems that morality and religion are perceived as separate realms in order to accomplish the teleological suspension.” -The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon Let’s think about why a religious man committing an unethical deed is deemed justified in the name of God. Why does he get a special treatment because of his beliefs?
Skepticism makes a person questions ideas toward multiple things such as knowledge or opinions that are stated as if it is true like facts. Rene Descartes argument for skepticism is to not believe every doubt that you give yourself. In his words "withstand all doubt because the evidence of our senses sometimes misleads us, it does not provide a secure basis for knowledge. We cannot be certain that we are awake and not dreaming." His argument can be argued because people have senses that can guide them to doubt themselves by the way people talk to them or other people actions.
They tear open the bag and the winds are released, blowing the ship back to Aeolia. This shows how disloyal the crew was being to Odysseus. This also demonstrates how careless Odysseus can be. By not telling his crew the contents of the mysterious bag, he caused himself a great deal and much time lost. Although, Odysseus is only human and cannot possibly remember to tell his crew every detail that happens in his life, so he cannot be blamed very much for this incident.
But a drawback would be that you wouldn't be living for goodness or for a deity, you would be living for yourself and this could seem selfish to some. But if you are really doing things that you feel are truly right, then it shouldn't seem selfish. I know that people don't always choose the right decision in life though. That would be
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.
The jurors cannot base their certainty on concrete evidence as the play indicates that very few facts are absolute because (quote). Instead, they must make up their minds based on the apparent likelihood of various events and on their own personal beliefs. Rose portrays that when it is difficult to maintain certainty about one’s beliefs, in this case the innocence or guilt of the boy, doubt is a reasonable and intelligent state of mind. This is proven by the 4th Juror and the 11th Juror when they say they “ … now have reasonable doubt”. Each of the jurors has a different degree of certainty about the opinions they hold, but cannot be completely sure, as the 9th Juror points out “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty.
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.