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.
What is simple subjectivism? Explain and evaluate the two best objections to it. Simple subjectivism is a metaethical theory that poses that qualities such as good and bad are true relative to the individual; thus moral judgements are simply expressions of opinion. However, this does not mean that every sentence uttered is true, as someone may propose a claim that does not correctly report their internal, subjective state. Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels.
A week later he did the same thing when he met 27 year old Eddie Smith. A few months later and his next victim was 22 year old Ernest Miller. Jeffrey had told him that he would pay him $50 to pose nude so he could take photos of him. This time he had drugged him and cut his throat. He also saved his skeleton and put in his closet and had cut off his biceps and was put in his freezer to eat at a later time.
Everything else is good only insofar as it creates pleasure, and bad only insofar as it creates pain. Apart from pleasure and pain, nothing has any value at all. The theory is utilitarian because it holds that the only thing that is relevant to the goodness or badness of an action is its effect on the amount of pleasure and pain in the world. Actions that bring more pleasure than pain into the world are good. Actions that bring more pain than pleasure into the world are bad.
Kansas v. Davidson 267 Kan 667; 987 P2d 335 (1999) By Supreme Court of Kansas Facts: Eleven year old, Chris Wilson was killed by the defendants Sabine and Jeffrey Davidson while waiting for the bus.Stated by the legislature as "the killing of a human being committed . . . unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." Based on the childs death, the defendants ( Davidsons) was charged with reckless second degree murder by the appellate court because they refused to keep their dog in the fence which later cause Chris life.
Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
In order to avoid the death penalty, the defense tried to have Chase found guilty of second degree murder, which would result in a life sentence. Their case hinged on Chase's history of mental illness and the lack of planning in his crimes, evidence that they were not premeditated. On May 8 the jury found Chase guilty of six counts of first degree murder. The defense asked for a clemency hearing, in which a judge determined that Chase was not legally insane; Chase was sentenced to die in the gas chamber. Waiting to die, Chase became a feared presence in prison; the other inmates (including several gang members), aware of the graphic and bizarre nature of his crimes, feared him, and according to prison officials, they often tried to convince Chase to commit suicide, too fearful to get close enough to him to kill him themselves.
Bernice Worden’s body was found hanging like a gutted deer in the summer kitchen where his parents usually butchered animals. When the police searched the rest of the house they found a number of disturbing things. Aside from the complete mess, there were six women’s faces removed from the skull and fashioned into masks hung on strings on the wall. In the kitchen there was a bowl made out of the top of a human skull, from with he usually ate a dinner of pork and beans, and a cup with four noses in it. The upstairs and the parlor were boarded up.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.