Kantian ethics is a poor theory. Discuss (10 marks) Kantian ethics can be seen as poor theory as it has its weaknesses. Every situation is unique, universal laws aren’t helpful in the real world where every situation is different. If no two situations are the same, morality should be relativist rather than absolutist. 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.
We promote goodness and happiness using nature and experience, we can work out thus, that murder, for example, is wrong because committing murder does not cause happiness. Ergo, Ethical Naturalism produces universal laws which can be used as a benchmark to measure our own and other people’s moral conduct. Meta-ethics on the other hand believes that no ethical language is universal and objective. Non-naturalists and non-cognitivists such as Cambridge philosopher G. E. Moore believe that ethical language is subjective, as by claiming that they are objective is committing the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. This states that it is a mistake to define ‘good’ in terms of things that exist (natural properties) that we already
Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth. Finally, this essay will evaluate the entertainment factor of torture as wrong, based on the argument that a transcultural moral standard of what is right and wrong does indeed exist and how and why this argument is a convincing one indeed. Moral relativism is the theory that what is considered virtuous conduct and right and wrong varies between different cultural contexts and societal situations and is nonexistent in the general abstract. The disagreement argument accounts for the seemingly obvious fact that different cultures have different moral beliefs leading to moral disagreements demonstrating that morality is merely a product of personal or cultural opinion. However, while moral agreements may never be reached fully and are difficult to establish, mere disagreement does not mean there is no absolute truth to pursue.
As there are two sides to a coin, there are two groups of believers- one that supports pacifism, and the other that does not. The basic principle of Pacifism is mainly to oppose the idea and act of war and violence completely. The ideology stems from the severity and moral derogation of war, where violence is used to take away or injure innocent lives, deeming it to be morally incorrect. With this thread of thought comes the inevitable conclusion that violence is never justified. Truthfully, violence has never been a concept that could be morally justified.
Secondly, moral absolutes do exist. The final body paragraph will counter the supporting arguments by clarifying that absolute objective truths do not exist as moral truth can be universal but not absolute as every culture has the opportunity to hold the same moral truth and the opportunity to be tolerant of all societies. To reply, a current example that is relevant today is provided to show that theoretically the counter argument is strong, but practically Sumner’s statement is not possible. Cultural relativism is the theory that a person's culture strongly influences an individual’s mode of perception and thought (“Relativism”, 2014). The principle claims that there are no objective truth or values as morality is relative to each society or culture.
Does human intention cause behaviour, or is the appearance that behaviour is caused by human intention just an illusion? This question is the fundamental issue when one is trying to evaluate the arguments presented by epiphenomenalism on the mind-body relationship. Epiphenomenalism denies that the mental realm can have causal relations with the physical realm, but agrees that the physical realm can have causal relations with the mental realm. In that sense, agency seems to be an illusion and mental processes cannot affect the physical world. The fear of losing agency is not an adequate reason to reject epiphenomenalism.
Cultural relativism is a valid moral theory because there are no universal moral truths. Critically Discuss. Cultural Relativism theory takes the position that no objective truth or values can exist for these are distinctive to each society and culture (D’Olimpio, 2013). William Graham Sumner argues that that there are no universal truths in ethics; all ethical norms are relative to cultures (Sommers, 2001). I will now present my argument that cultural relativism is not a valid moral theory.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks. It is unable to show that for every (ordinary) person, acting morally will always be in that person’s self-interest. There are also immoral acts other than self-interested ones that are at least as much in opposition to morality. A successful defeat must show that all immoral acts are irrational. Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so.
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.