For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral. For each culture, the reason for their actions might seem right and make sense but for others´ point of view it might seem
Some people believe that culture is a way that morality can be established, but morality differs from culture to culture. In Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn talks about cultural relativism and lays out an argument for it. In the second premise it states “If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles” (Vaughn 26). He makes it clear that he does not support this premise and explains his points as to why this is false. Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in.
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. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
They believe this was a right that they were given by our Four Fathers, which is clearly not true. Yes, they have the freedom of speech but when should the freedom be taken away? What about the rights of the innocent victims and their families? Hate crimes, because of their nature will always lead to violence and this is not a freedom that people should have. In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different.
Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because of crimal justice. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because the person could run. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because now there are camera's that capture everything we do. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because it is stupid to kill someone just because they stole some property. Another opinion is because some people do not like to kill
Cultural Relativism is a theory stating the idea that cultural norms and ideas differ from culture to culture. In addition, Cultural Relativism says that there are no universal standards and truth in ethics. It is relative to the culture to determine whether a moral standard is right or wrong. There is no objective standards judging other cultures code as inferior or superior to another. Thus, since cultural relativism states that we can’t judge other cultures moral codes, then we must be tolerant of them.
His first premise is, death and suffering due to starvation and malnutrition are very bad. Famine is prominent in many third world countries, and as people living on the same planet it is horrible to know that those less fortunate do not have the amount of food needed to survive. This is a fact, not an argument. Moving on to the second premise which states, if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of equal moral importance then we ought to do it. I previously stated death and suffering from malnutrition are bad, therefore if we can prevent famine without harming ourselves we ought to do it.
Under this situation, if the other members just conform blindly for the fear of being left alone by others, the out-of-date food sold in the market might hurt the health of the consumers and negatively harm the company’s long term benefit in the end. On the other hand, there is also another reason why we should avoid conformity that is because to conform blindly to the former conclusion might limit the process of innovation. Think about all the great inventions in human history, none of them is result of conformity but instead they are the result inventor’s innovation and the result of breaking the stereotype. Only by getting rid of conformity can we increase the speed of a society’s
Strengths of this study would include the large number of participants over various countries therefore a socio-cultural strength and more in depth data is produced. Another strength is the ability to access existing conditions or phenomena ethically. A weakness of this study would be using a self scale is unreliable as the participants might have a different approach on how intense the level of disgust is on the scale. Another weakness could be that there could be participants who have not taken the online survey seriously therefore altering the results. These results showed that because people find the pictures that harm our immune system more disgusting , we use the disgust gene as a protection against disease.
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.