We are behaving morally, on the other hand, if we resist because we believe it is wrong to steal and that by stealing we would be treating someone else as a means to an end (e.g. for our own enrichment) which would be wrong in itself. Kant then goes on to argue that in an ideal world (one in which good was always rewarded and evil punished) moral behaviour (which would be in accordance with the categorical imperative) would always lead to happiness. In the real world, however, this does not necessarily happen. Therefore there must be
Typical words that could be said when in an argument are “that’s not fair”, “you are wrong” and “how’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”.The point Lewis is trying to make is that all humans, whether intentionally or not, follow some standard of behavior and expect others to follow it just as well. If there were no standard for right and wrong then Hitler’s actions would be considered acceptable behavior. Fault would be non-existent without a source of truth. In other words there cannot be wrong unless is a standard of rightness to compare one’s behavior to. Another point C.S Lewis makes when in The Law of Human Nature is that this law applies to all humans in all places and at all times.
Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest. This is why Kant uses his ‘categorical imperative’ as it simply is “I must do ‘x’” because there is no possibility of conflicting with self interest. The categorical imperative also has two parts; universal law and ends and means. This determines if the action you are considering to
The philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead suggests: ‘Morality is what the majority then and there happens to like and immorality is what they dislike’. With reference to human beings being good, does this confirms why people behave in a certain way like they do? Engeli et al. (2010) argues: “Aside from the usual topics on political agendas, such as welfare state reforms, deteriorating environmental conditions and the current financial crises, a set of typical items, known as ‘morality issues’,
Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory. • It can be difficult to implement in both a personal sense and in society as a whole. No one can fully understand and take into account every single consequence of an action regardless of how intelligent they may be. Therefore no one can be sure that his or her action will cause no pain, and will be beneficial to everyone involved. • Situation ethics can even be a way to approve of what are considered in society as ‘evil’ acts.
Free will is a big responsibility, and the cardinal's argument justifies the fact on why man should not be privileged with this. His totalitarian view is simply, as long as he can provide security and stability, a human doesn't require free will. All they are expected to do is follow the guidelines provided by the authority figure. In this case, the cardinal. Whereas another believer Kant, strongly believes that human beings are ought to be free, and one must do anything to make his own decisions.
The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). As with scepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so.
I will try to show some logical contradictions that occur even if we ignore this is-ought problem. One maxim of moral relativism which will form the basis of the following arguments is “There is no “universal truth” in ethics—that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times” (Rachels 1986, p. 421). I will compare this claim to others made by relativists and attempt to show that this central claim of relativism is violated by the others. “The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.” (Rachels 1986, p. 421) This is the central claim of moral relativism, the single claim that sums it up best. It is a very interesting claim though, because it states what is right, not within a single society, but within all societies.
With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral. Within the Principle of Liberty, Mill also claims that it is not acceptable for society to put restrictions on an individual’s conduct, for reasons that they feel would be in the best interest of that person. The majority only has the right to develop laws that confine the conduct of individuals with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of others; otherwise they would be obstructing that person’s right to individuality. Mill believes that everyone is entitled to certain moral rights that cannot be denied. Every member of society is entitled to rights of security of his person and property, as well as basic liberties such as freedom of opinion and the right to live his life as he so chooses.
Duty can be explained by Kant as “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”, meaning that you should only act in a way that you would want the rest of society to act. Trough out a person’s lifetime they will perform a countless amount of actions, but of those actions, the majority are done from inclination, and not from duty. According to Kant that would mean that no one has great moral worth. I disagree with Kant, because I believe that acts that are done from inclination are more morally worthy as those that are