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.
Poor Gene When only judging Gene based on his actions, Gene can definitely be considered immoral. After all, Gene does jounce Finny off a tree limb. Gene also kicks Leper’s chair from under him and runs away from his friend in need. Gene is completely contemptible for all of his immoral actions, true. Although, what he does is understandable considering that he is a young, inexperienced boy who struggles with “the war” (24), self-esteem, jealousy, fear (and other emotions), and maturing, or “growing up”, with no real guidance.
While the common conception is that free will is glorious and without error or care, the opposite is true. Decisions greatly task the mind, which is concerned about consequence and the numerous outcomes when making a choice. Here or there, this or that; any option will confuse and weigh upon the human mind. Connecting back to previous statements about children’s ignorance of what is acceptable, a child would have even more dilemmas when given freedom from routines because of their lack of world experience. The numerous uncertainties from this freedom and ignorance can be overwhelming and cause individuals to feel uneasy about their current state.
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.
When you lie about something, you put a lot of thought into it and decide yourself whether the truth or a lie is better for you. When you bullshit, you know barely enough to just get by without having to put any effort into what you are supposed to have done. The bullshitter is lazy, and laziness is not a trait that we should
Emerson’s view on consistency is, once again, completely different form the average view from society. He sees consistency as a bad trait and something that everyone should shy away from. I myself believe that Emerson is right in believing consistency isn’t such a great thing. I believe people should be inconsistent and change their mind if they are given a certain amount of proof to change their mind. This is how Emerson sees consistency; he is very much against it and looks down upon those who do not change their minds.
Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck” Nagel begins his argument by explaining the problem with moral judgment upon individuals is that it does not take into consideration the actions that are not within one’s control, or is not their fault. That when we place the moral judgment upon a person as an object, independent of the external forces involved, and whether the outcome is good or bad, this would be considered ‘moral luck’. This brings in to question the validity of any moral judgment, because the more one looks into the given situation and what factors were outside the control of the person being judged, the more one sees that any moral responsibility is diminished. And with this statement, the addition that even our system of belief that we use to make these moral judgments is also largely based upon things, internal and external, that are beyond our control. Nagel’s basic thesis of this issue
She argues that not only is moral isolationism the view that one ought to respect other cultures but not judge them not right but it is logically incoherent. She presents four arguments that judgment is logically antecedent to respect that outsiders can judge foreign cultures if on a provisional basis and that moral isolationism leads to a complete inability to make moral judgments of any kind, and that cultures are not as moral isolationism holds isolating barriers. Her ﬁrst argument is if moral isolationism is correct then one can respect a culture without judging it. But this is logically incoherent because judgment is logically antecedent to respect. One must judge a culture to some degree in order to respect it.
Because your partner is the person you have power over and by using deception they can’t truly see what you are doing, so they go on not doing anything bad because they don’t know if they can see you but they might be watched. Especially if you are a couple who always has to know where each other is. A synonym for deception is bad faith which is really spot on for what she is talking about in her essay because that’s what adultery is just plain old bad faith. And if you have this power of deception you are also somewhat harnessing the power of the panopticon. Deception is just another agency where you can lose power without even knowing it because of your ability to not see what is going
That’s fairly safe. But I warn you, sir, you can’t compete with all these monkeyshines.”(Lawrence and Lee, 16) By this, Hornbeck means to sound like he is ridiculing the issue of evolutionism referring to the fact that man stemmed from monkeys and referring to it as grandpa. Also the fact that he belittles a serious issue by mocking creationists when speaking on evolutionism, as everyone in this town believes in god. Therefore, Hornbeck’s taunting results in the idea that evolutionism is a joke to him. Hornbeck further continues to ridicule both creationism and evolutionism, sarcastically remarking “How could you ask for better proof than that?