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.
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.
As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed. The ethical expert would advise “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” to exercise self-restraint and act ethically as it is their duty. Despite the temptation to please audiences and to achieve high ratings and revenues by humorous pranks, duty must prevail and the prank must not be aired. Furthermore, individuals in and outside the business universally should be treated with respect and should not be treated as a means to an end. To not air such pranks; this can be easily accepted universally, which is in compliance with Kantian ethics.
You are claiming that I am older than you yet are you wiser than I am in acknowledging the fact that people, who do harm, harm those whom they are closest to whereas good people do good things to their neighbors, but I am ignorant to understand this. This means that if I make one of my associate’s evil, I run the risk of being harmed by his evil intentions. Overall you are claiming that I am deliberately putting myself into danger. This Meletus is not true and I don’t believe you and I don’t think anyone else will. I do not corrupt the young, I do so unwillingly or you are lying.
I never understood whose gods were the right ones or if there really was a god at all. I do understand that causing harm to someone else is wrong and I won’t intentionally cause harm to myself or someone else. My moral code says that judging someone based upon their skin color, who they’re in love with, or their religion is wrong. My moral code says that everyone is entitled to pursue their own happiness so long as it does no harm. If someone is offended by how I live my life or what I believe, that’s their right to be offended but if I have not caused them harm, then my conscience is clear.
In addition to the concerns about non-confidentiality, the qualifications required under the proposed legislation for parenting coordinators are onerous and unnecessary. The process of parenting coordination is not dependent upon advanced degrees in mental health disciplines or excessive trainings. Certainly some training is necessary and the requirements under the current statute are quite adequate. Courts are conscious of the qualifications of those whom we appoint to serve families on a confidential basis. If conduct that is counter-productive to the aim of helping families resolve conflict is brought to our attention, regardless of whether it had to do with compliance with standards or statutes, we have the discretion to remove the appointed individual and never to appoint them again.
Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation. Just as the law of gravity is universal, Kant believed so should the ‘law’ of ethics. To Kant, doing the right moral action is a categorical imperative. Ethics should be without exceptions. For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie.
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
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.