People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and
I try to avoid conflicts and protect the least advantaged without creating unnecessary hassles for the rest. One of my weaknesses is that I trust reasonable systems to solve most problems. Because of that I run the risk to be considered authoritarian and assuming that my way is best, which is not at all my intention. At some point I could become isolated because not everyone can guarantee equality. My obsession with justice could drive those I care about most away from me.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.
These are based on the simple principle of ‘do as you would be done by’. Men and women should have the right, for example, to free speech because we recognise that being forced to stay silent on matters important to you is intolerable. We know that human nature is not perfect, and susceptible to behaviour which infringes the rights of others. Thus, to prevent these rights ever being infringed by individuals or governments, these need to be enshrined in a legal document. | | Any society always assumes that it’s position on matters is the most sensible, most rational, and, ultimately, best.
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
The Imperial secretary Sang Hongyang declares “abolition of these measures is not expedient.” This statement means that Legalists believe the policies are necessary to keep the empire running and that it is not practical to abolish them, for then the treasuries would be depleted and funding for defense for the soldiers would be obsolete. Then he goes on to explain how “equitable marketing” was established and how it contributes to their country. Before this system, the people would send respective products as tributes to support the country, but the Legalists think that people are untrustworthy and should be governed by laws to force them to do good. They came up with this set of laws, i.e. setting up transportation offices, forcing the people to send their goods to these places because the government did not trust the quality of the products sent from the people.
Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature. Hamilton views the role of government as changeable and believed it would work better as a strong centralized government. As long man has faith in changing a government, man will abide by it. He states," not conform to the dictates of reason
With reference to Singer’s statement that, “… prevent evil… without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance”, in as much as the act of helping a friend who is suffering in a critical condition is morally good, in contrast, it is morally wrong to rob people at gun point. It would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance for another. In other words, it is wrong to do a wrong action because of a right one. Singer also emphasizes the fact that you must be in the position to help. I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
It is clear that people do not abide by the laws regarding to alcohol consumption and that shows their lack of respect for this law so what’s stopping people from loosing respect for other laws and in consequence not following them? When laws are put in place but they are difficult or near impossible to enforce it causes a loss of respect by the members of society. Albert Einstein is correct in saying that “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. In conclusion there is no point in making a law which cannot be