The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is meaningless as it cannot be correctly defined, given that one cannot derive any moral statements from natural facts. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be
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.
Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral. In contrast, teleological ethical systems focus completely on the outcomes and consequences of an act. Teleology is a theory of ethics according to which the rightness of an act is determined by it's end. Also known as consequentialism, actions that result in what can be considered as a good consequence must be good and so the end result will justify the reason that the act was committed in the first place. Both deontological and teleological ethical systems use opposing ethical guides yet they both have the same aim, to help people make moral decisions.
You would have to rely on the patient giving you the information for it not is socially desirable or have demand characteristics. On the other hand, it is better than individual differences as people may have the same thought patterns and processes. You can only obtain this information by self reports, which would probably give both of those issues; social desirability and demand characteristics. These would affect your results and therefore they would not be reliable or valid. If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way.
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. Relativism related to moral issues is called ethical relativism: the denial of any absolute or objective moral values and the affirmation of the individual, community or culture as the source of moral values. A relativist might say that there are no absolute moral rights for women to walk the streets unaccompanied by men; they do have that right in the U.S., but not in Afghanistan, and who are we to judge what another society believes? The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism: there are universal moral standards--not in the sense that everybody accepts them, but in the sense that those who do not accept them are wrong. Thus, a person who defends universal human rights is an ethical absolutist, on
Thus this essay will posit that Machiavelli is not motivated by immorality but rather pragmatism, in his advocacy of the means necessary to achieving an ‘end’ of stability and security for the collective good of the people. As Ramsay (1995: 179) considers, ‘we may have to be cruel to be kind’. Although the means may sometimes present an inhumane stratagem, only those which are necessary for safeguarding the state are employed, a state in which human themselves act in immoral ways. In this realist context, it is unfair to label Machiavelli an immoralist. The Elizabethan and dramatist view of Machiavelli, at least as a political thinker, is that of a man inspired by the Devil to lead good men to their doom (Berlin, 1979).
a) Explain the concept of relativist ethics. (25 marks) b) ‘Relativist Ethics are unfair’ Discuss. (10 marks) a) Relativist ethics can be described as the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definitions of right or wrong depend upon the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or even the politics of the area. People do not always agree on what ‘s right and what’s wrong. For example, in some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, while in other cultures this would be seen to be immoral, and even a crime.
This essay will be in an affirmative position in regard to Albert Einstein’s quote “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. This quote means what’s the point in making a law when you can’t make sure that it’s enforced and upheld. Also it is saying that if the law isn’t respected. One of the reasons laws are put in place are to maintain a civil society. Therefore if laws are not respected we will lose a civil society and everything will turn to chaos.
Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience shows his dislike of the government. We live in a world where everything we do is related to the government. There are many things that happen in which the citizens do not agree with but we have to or get ourselves killed or into jail. There are many things that the government has not done right but I do not believe that we should have a government at all as Thoreau suggested. The government should not be used to control the people but to direct them in the right direction.
If society has values set in place, it has to be for a reason. The reason would be wasted if we decide not to install them into the youth of today. How do you feel about cheating? It is universal that it is wrong, but if its not enforced on the children and explained how morally and ethically wrong it is. Will they ever know that forcing yourself sexually on another person is right or wrong?