Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42). Since we cannot look at each client individually to determine whether or not Dr. Smith’s confidentiality policy is morally justifiable (it may be for one client, but not for another), we cannot properly answer this question using act-based utilitarianism. Rule-based utilitarianism, on the other hand, changes the basic utilitarianism’s principle from “everyone should always act to bring about the greatest good (i.e., “happiness”) for all
Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification. This seems a fairly logical conclusion, in order to justify what we do we look at it in basic terms, but such a process could not take place indefinitely without coming to a base truth which could not be broken down further. It’s the classic “it just is” situation in an argument, where the statement cannot be further simplified nor justified. The problem however is agreeing on what these basic moral truths are. Moore and WD Ross a fellow intuitionist agreed that pleasure, knowledge and virtue are all intrinsically good, and pain, ignorance and vice are intrinsically bad.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
Delbanco’s interpretation that Thoreau creates world that we both need and fear is basically saying that Thoreau creates the perfect world that we would need to best survive and would strive the best in; however this world is something that we as people are not used to and have never experienced so we would be skeptical and scared when it is presented to us. I definitely agree with Delbanco’s statement about Thoreau’s world. Although it would be nice to love in a world where things were based on a man’s conscience rather than government, and the people played a bigger part in how things were ran; it would be something nobody is used to therefore no one would really know what they were doing and who is to say we can trust everyone’s conscience because there are some people in the world with bad consciences. In my opinion Thoreau’s world would only work in
However, I do not find the argument to be that convincing. After reading this argument, I did not find it to have stimulated my mental capacities. However, based on what it has presented, the argument is valid and most of all makes sense because it originates from definitions that provide a solid base for the argument. The objections to this argument do raise several valid points to the concept of whether or not the “maximally great” being in question does have a universal position across all the worlds he may or may not exist in. What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world?
Mister singer uses it here to suggests that no-one should sacrifice more than we can spare but donate what we can that will do the most good for the greatest number of people. What this means is that one should not cause harm to themselves while helping others. It is my opinion that Mister Singer’s ideas are fully justifiable. First it is true that we must endeavor to provide aide and end suffering: Jeffery Obler wrote that “To ignore the needy is morally wrong, and failure to help is not acceptable” (Obler, 1986).it is also logical to assume that doing the right thing has an effect not only on the one helped but also on the helper: it makes one feel good about oneself and enriches your soul, giving you something about yourself to feel pride in your
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”.
The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this. This theory is referred to as hard determinism If this is true, then the claim that we do not have free will seems fairly convincing. However there are more ways of looking at determinism through soft determinism and libertarianism. Broadly speaking, determinism is the position that every event could not have had another outcome, and therefore any decisions that we make as humans do not impact this ultimate outcome. This clearly is supportive of the title statement as if true, then all outcomes are already decided and therefore our decisions are similarly already decided by some sort of greater power.
We tend to dumb down the truth because we cannot accept that people are made up of both good and bad. Which seems odd because that sentiment should be something every single human being can relate to. Its evident that Lincoln had prejudices and faults, but that does not and should never demean his political genius as well as the irreplaceable role he
I believe that Cultural Relativism is acceptable today as there are no universal moral truths. In different cultures certain actions have different meanings and we coming from different cultures find it difficult to comprehend the historical and cultural practices. It is more important to look at the act in context of that particular cultures moral stand on what is right and wrong. Cultural relativism is seen as wrong by many people due to what is considered inhumane by other cultural standards yet it comes down to the point of who can justify what is morally right and wrong and should we try and westernize these cultures which in the end will destroy their cultures belief and years of cultural practice. No one can ultimately set out a list of moral universal truths as they could not possibly take into consideration all practices upheld by different cultures.