He believes society has grown custom to useless things and we don’t need. He states that although you might think you own your belongings, your belongings own you because if something were to happen to your things you would be devastated, so Tyler wants to put an end to all of that. He is trying to make everyone re envision their way of life. He wants to start anew and the only way to reach that goal was to reset everyone’s credit to zero by destroying several buildings of importance. He gained many followers by manipulation and helped them all hit rock bottom, and by doing so they are able to destroy their false self and over, because only when you have reached an all time low you will not have anywhere else to go but up, his belief was once you hit bottom that when you can truly achieve perfection.
A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.
The aberrant perspective of Gilgamesh which I am presenting may seem divergent and atypical when analysed in accordance to our modern values and principles, but to Gilgamesh this would be quite natural. The values and ethics that contemporary readers hold shape their perspective of characters as they respond in various ways to the adventures that said characters undertake. A perfect example of this is when the narrator speaks of the state of Uruk and says “No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all”. From this, the contemporary audience frames Gilgamesh as an immoral tyrant, as their value of free will is being challenged. However, Gilgamesh’s intentions were in the interest of the people, as he moulded the sons into warriors to protect the city.
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.
James Rachels, in his The Challenge of Cultural Moral Relativism, argues that cultural moral relativism, the standard y which people find things acceptable or not depending on their own cultures, is not a relevant and ethical way to judge cultures and their practices. His arguments aim at explaining why, just because a practice or belief is held to be true by a society or culture at large, does not make it right or ethical ultimately, or free from criticism. Perez 2 Upon learning of a certain ethnic or socioeconomic group discriminating or otherwise persecuting another group, weather drawing lines of distinction based on racial or other criteria, most people recoil in distaste and reproach. From the Indian caste system, which relegates some people to menial, undesirable positions of labor, to the German Third Reich, which decided weather people lived or died depending on their ethnic and religious background, exterminating millions of people, what is and has been seen
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).
I do believe the unpleasant arousal and negative emotions would simply be temporary, if the experiment was conducted in accordance to American Psychological Association (APA) ethical guideline, and the IRB. I would judge the ethics of the study based on the way the researchers and experimenters handle the debriefing. I feel that deception, at times is a necessary tool social psychologist need to understand and generalize certain phenomena. Elm’s discusses the need for deception for increased external validity. He argues that if participants know what behaviors and emotions researchers
Lastly, they question whether people are just born bad. Referring back to Clarence Darrow, the authors state that “Darrow believed that Leopold and Leob were “born bad” because they were born without feelings as pity and sympathy,” in which they may agree. However, Anthropologist John Townsend writes, that humans are wired for certain behaviors and the behaviors will emerge whether we want them to or not…but that does not mean that we have to act on it. Quotes: “We come equipped by nature with deep-seated desires that we can only resist with difficulty.” “We need an explanation for why some people, but not others, are able to resist the impulses that nature has given
Self Interest or Privilege Superson approaches the moral skeptic in a way in which helps us to better understand the skeptic’s view but at the same time, by developing a better understanding of the moral skeptic, she is better fit to defeat it. The moral skeptic is aware of morality, yet lacks any interest in abiding by it, rather acting in self-interest. The traditional model of the skeptic dichotomizes morality with self-interest, because it is assumed that the skeptic endorses expected utility and the motives he believes is rational to have (ones that are most in conflict with morality). Rational actions go hand in hand with self-interested actions, and this is identified with promoting the satisfaction of any of one’s desires or preferences but moral ones, or with maximizing one’s expected utility. According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks.