Nielsen states ”I shall argue…that autonomy cannot be widespread or secure in a society which is not egalitarian: where, that is, equality is not also a fundamental value which has an operative role within the society” (Munson 708). This is to mean, as reconstructed above, that for a society to be autonomous (in that its citizens are “capable of self-direction” (708)) it must also be egalitarian. The first premise of Nielsen’s argument relies on the idea of “moral equality,” which is to mean, as Nielsen says, “the life of everyone matters and matters equally“ (708). From this definition, I propose that the first premise is a self-evident claim. Nielsen later states, “Liberty cannot flourish without something approaching this equality of condition, and people without autonomous lives will surely live impoverished lives….In fine, a commitment to achieving equality of condition, far from undermining liberty
Diversity challenges us to recognize and value all sorts of differences in order to make our environment a better place for everyone to work. | Diversity is visible and non-visible differences which include personal characteristics such as background, culture, race, personality disability, age, gender belief are religion. | Equality | Equality is about making sure people are treated fairly and given fair chances. Equality is not about treating everyone in the same way, but it recognizes that their needs are met in different ways. | Equality focuses on those areas covered by the law, Equal wages for the employees with same qualification, experience doing the same job.
Equality is a concept quite equivocal, form the Latin aequalitas "equal" , it can be characterized as what is equivalent , which is no different either quantitatively or qualitatively , we need to distinguish equal rights and social equality. This is why, in practice, egalitarian demand is often criticized for hurting individual freedom to the extent that characterized by the absence of difference, it would lead to uniformity. Consequently, does the claim of equal threat the freedom? However, we will dedicate ourselves to distinguish between no difference and lack of identity, because if equality is reflected in the lack of difference , it is not the lack of identity , so we can refute the argument of equality binds to the uniformity. Thus, the demand for equality is not necessarily antagonistic to that of freedom.
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
Diversity consists of both visible and non-visible factors, which include personal characteristics such as; background, culture, personality and work style and also the protected characteristics such as gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, religion and belief and age. By recognising and understand individual differences we are able to create an environment in which everybody feels valued. 1.1 b- Equality Equality means the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities. Equality is about making sure that people are treated fairly and given fair chances. Equality is not about treating everybody in exactly the same way.
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.
However, conservatives argue that this is fair, as those who shoulder mores responsibility in society should be repaid more in terms of wealth than someone with less responsibility. This arguably means that it will lead to a fairer society. An 'organic society' could reduce atomism. This is because an 'organic society' sees society as a whole, living entity as opposed to being made up of self-seeking and self-striving individuals. This could lead to society being more cooperative, as people comprehend that everyone is of equal value to society, regardless of the role they fulfil.
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
If one was to experience both an intellectual and a physical pleasure (not necessarily at the same time) eventually they are going to have a preference of one over the other. It is of no moral obligation to choose other than having a pure and strong desire to choose that one particular pleasure. But that desire and decision makes it the higher pleasure. Mill has to make that difference clear because although it is up to the one who has done both
Equity to me is not as important as obligation. The WEAI states that my ethical perspective “on an individuals duty or obligation to do what is morally right – principles that represent what rational persons ought morally to do” (WEAI, 2006). I believe everyone has a right to believe and act the way he or she chooses, however I look at how he or she handles a situation, rather than his or her results. I do believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights and those rights require that there is mutual respect one another. Individuals have an obligation to make decisions that benefit everyone, without taking away from others.