This is the question absolutes ask before making any decisions. Although many think this theory Has its weaknesses. Many people think that did God write this theory because it is good merely or is it that the thought it would be good to him. Some also say that why should we follow everything God says, that if he said killing people was good, will that mean it was actually good. Also Absolute Laws are always interpreted the wrong way.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
Although this may not seem like God is issuing the justice being met, believers of the DJT will argue that God is the one controlling the people who are sentencing the criminal with their punishment, and therefore God is ensuring that justice is met. The DJT is a more plausible explanation of God relating to morality than both the Divine Informer Theory (DIT) and the Divine Command Theory (DCT). The DIT states that God has given us knowledge of moral law, and has done so through religious texts or by putting the knowledge directly in our mind. This is not plausible, however, because many religious texts are interpreted differently, and therefore moral standards differ from culture to culture. Therefore, DIT isn’t a
Humans individually may also disagree over what is right and wrong : while one person may say gossiping is an awful thing that should be avoided another person may think that so long that the person you are gossiping about doesn’t hear or find out, it’s okay. So what controls what we personally believe is right or wrong? Is it our countries laws, our society’s beliefs or our family’s upbringing? Or does it go deeper than that: it is our natural instinct or something built up by religion? And if it is religion how come those from different religions have different opinions?
January 22 2013 Human Nature: Good vs. Evil For centuries, man has been plagued with the burden of trying to decipher if humans are born good, or if we are just inherently evil. After many trials and tribulations, most people have come to their own conclusions regarding this statement. Although there have been some good arguments made about the opposing view, the truth is that that humans are born evil; however, parental guidance which creates nonviolent homes along with laws that force individuals to choose good restrain our potential for evil, but if it weren’t for the latter, we would take as we wanted, and if it wasn’t for laws enforcing us to be good, the world would be in chaos, because it is our natural instinct to do as we please, and to take what we want, and not only this, but many different cultures have adopted rituals to rid children of their evils, because they feel that human nature is evil, and that they have to give the child a “clean slate”. Because we are only human, we tend to make mistakes more often than not, and because we make those mistakes, it is hardly impossible to argue that humans are good.
When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally. Typically in any deontological system, our duties, rules, and obligations are determined by God. Being moral is thus a matter of obeying God. Deontological moral systems typically stress the reasons why certain actions are performed. Simply following the correct moral rules is often not sufficient; instead, we have to have the correct motivations.
These flaws are usually associated with the fact that they are unable to fulfil the need to gain the answer since they may be biased, however even when these two ways of knowing are put together, they may contradict each other, or do not share the same view on the same exact case, this is what is considered as the conflict. In order to understand and find the answer to the question, the question must be clearly defined, in terms of emotion and reason as well as the idea of the conflict. Emotion is defined as any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking. Simply, emotion is the representation of one's mind when it comes to decision making or confronted with any other serious situation, and it occurs whether the individual consciously or subconsciously aware of it. Such example would be when one feels angered by the fact that the two choices given are not the choices that one desires or when confronted with an insulting joke, one would laugh at the joke, but disgusted or angered by the insult.
Our generation is not simply more self-centered or less moral than our predecessors. I contend that this appearance of moral degeneration is more accurately perceived as moral confusion. When we ask why individuals act unethically, we must also be prepared to ask why it is that our ethics make it seem to be in the individual self-interest to do so. Because our common morality limits our freedom to behave in ways we might otherwise choose to, it
Ethical relativism is supported due to the narrowing view of ethnocentrism, which is causing great “prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism” (Pojman, 25). Society is moving away from their ethnocentric view of the world, which allows for a more diverse cultural of right and wrong. Moral positions are based on what their society sees as ideal norms. The first of two theses is cultural relativism, “what is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to society”(Pojman, 26), meaning that there is no universal morals, which are accepted by all societies. In some cultures it might be morally acceptable to value slavery, genocide, or female circumcision.
Finally, there are evident differences with religion and laws and morals of a society, whereby morals and laws are able to change liberally, unlike religion. It is apparent that Lord Denning’s statement is invalid due to its definitive wording. Lord Denning’s first premise in his statement is that religion forms a basis for morality, yet religion can also cause immoral acts and morality can form with an absence religion. Religion is used to mask the immoral acts committed by religious followers, exemplified by Burling Professor, Dr Ruth Wedgwood who commented on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, stating that “the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure.” What