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.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
You probably will not answer all these questions, and the paper should not be a string of answers. You will formulate a thesis that responds to one or two or even several of these questions. Your thesis will need to be an argument that can stand alone. " Weakness is the mother of justice " , I actually didn't think about this , till I read it here and I think I agree with it . Some people are just because they don't have enough power to change how people act or change anything around them .
A society without laws would be a corrupt chaotic society that would put people in a state of crisis because people would be murdered for possessions they own, fundamental beliefs of how people preserve what’s right from wrong in a society would not be the same as a normal society, and a balance between individual rights and public order would not be a basis part of a society. In this society without a government people would not be prosperous and seek new ways to live as a group. The basis for money would not be the same as with a government and would result in different forms of exchange. Education would not be the same because that is part of a unifying government trying to educate its society, for which a society without laws and government would not unify in such a matter. Care for others such as medical treatment would not have the same basis as a normal society because of how people perceive the responsibility of others in a aspect of individual care.
A firm structure is provided by there being an absolute theory,which does create less confusion when part-taking in decision making although the natural law does depended on a hierarchy, a greater power that is, a posteriori as no one is actually sure of its existence as there is not proof, only probability of the existence. A final criticism of why Natural law is not the best approach to Decision making is natural law removes the ability to make decisions freely, you are forced to think of whether you decision will be moral or approved of by the higherarchy, which does not appear to be the best way to chose how to deal with situations not matter how important the decision you make is. In conclusion, it is clear that natural moral law is not the best approach to Decision Making- a process through which the individual ‘seeks a solution’ to a problem or a
Using the example of the law we will notice that we cannot function as a society without objective knowledge. It would be impossible to come to a general consensus on laws, which are needed for the survival of our society. However, in this same situation we cannot solely rely on objective knowledge to create the law. Subjectivity assists in creating a law that is right for everyone, because there are a variety of variables are
In this regard, most people are pushed to abide by the laws of the land as a result of fear of consequences such as punishment and becoming a social outcast. There is no debate concerning the prudential reason theory. This implies that members of the society abide by legal rules for various reasons other than a moral obligation. Nonetheless, this does not imply that there should not be the moral obligation to abide by the laws of the society. There is no reason that exceeds the weight of the society’s obligation to obey the law.
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
It is clear that people do not abide by the laws regarding to alcohol consumption and that shows their lack of respect for this law so what’s stopping people from loosing respect for other laws and in consequence not following them? When laws are put in place but they are difficult or near impossible to enforce it causes a loss of respect by the members of society. Albert Einstein is correct in saying that “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. In conclusion there is no point in making a law which cannot be
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the