Violating a person in such a way is horrible, cruel and it can lead to severe physiological problems of the victim. Rape is not beneficial to society and it is not agreed upon by both parties, but instead forced upon on the one not in agreement. Rape is not only with women, but also with children and men. There are those who specifically target women because they know they can overpower them if they need to in order to get their way. Children or minors may lack the judgment needed for valid consent.
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
It is produced from a feeling of indignation and intolerance for the conduct that takes place in prostitution. That feeling brings the opponents to believe that the society finds itself in a vulnerable position. In this vulnerable state, the community becomes threatened by immorality, but how can they determine whether or not sex for money is immoral? Perhaps, one would consider a profession in taking people’s homes that have been affected by the Recession more criminal than prostitution, but that occupation by no means criminalized. This brings one to the conclusion that it is impossible to assume there is one shared morality because different opinions exist.
Both corruption and abuse of force involve the intricacies of power and politics. Police may use their power to act as though they are above the law, and not required to abide by the same laws that govern the behavior of others. This, in turn, creates a slippery slope that leads to the abuse of police force, either directly or indirectly. Of course, neither of these outcomes benefits society at large; however, officers may develop an opinion that their actions, no matter how heinous, are justified if it leads to a desired outcome of enforcing the
Right and wrong is a reflection of people’s emotions, and as emotions vary, they can never have the same views on subjects. For example, a murderer could justify his actions as being "God's will" whereas many people would say that it’s wrong; not because of the moral rules, but because of moral values. Not everyone is religious and so will not accept his reason for murder. Natural Law has also not been proven so there is no point in pursuing the belief in them. Some may argue that murder, genocide, rape etc are universally wrong, but not everyone believes that.
In searching for what nonconsequentialist believe, I found that it is the opposition of consequentalism. One view that is in opposition to consequentialism is deontology. Alexander describes dentology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
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.
The result of this moral compass is an unstable platform for truth; as a result secular humanism supports gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. Socially unacceptable behaviors such as murder, rape, and robbery are not accepted by secular
During the agentic state an individual may feel moral strain, moral strain is when a person may be aware that the order they're following is immoral or goes against their moral views but they feel unable to disobey and continue the behaviour anyway. When in the agentic state the individual is acting as an agent for others, they do not feel responsible for their own actions as they believe responsibility falls to the authority figure giving the order. As this gives a clear description of obedience, society can learn from and aim to avoid future events similar to Mai Lai massacre. There has been much researcher into obedience through many studies including Milgram & Hofling, both these studies were lab experiments so any findings from the data would be considered high in validity and therefore any changes made to society from the theory would likely be worthwhile. However agency theory is more of a description than an evaluation of obedience, therefore the theory is incomplete and other theories, such as social power theory it is an alternative explanation for obedience, as a result of this any changes society makes on the basis of agency theory may be invalid and useless as the theory itself may be incorrect/incomplete.
Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.