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.
Meta-Ethics is a branch of ethics which is concerned with the language that is used in ethical arguments. Many would say that if we do not know what we are talking about, then there is not point to ethical debate. This differs from normative which deicides whether or not something is bad or good and gives us a guide for moral behaviour. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics and tried to make sense of the terms and concepts used. The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean?
In terms of the requirements of freedom, man would rather “choose his slavery and pay it homage”. Man would rather accept their role in society and respect their role in society than to live through freedom’s requirements. The requirements of freedom are “silence, strength, the death of empty alliance, and an end to ego baths.” This says that one needs tobe quiet, but at the same time needs to have a stong soul because maintaining freedom is not easy. The best way to have freedom is to live through society’s response because of the difference between them and you. Also “empty alliances” refers to how when confrormed into a society, people are unified, but it is empty because there is no real meaning to the unity of society because peple want to be with other people.
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
Is the sacrifice of one individual’s freedom justified if it is for the good of the rest of the society? The message in the short story, “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas" by Ursula LeGuin, shows the reader that it is justified if it benefits more people than it hurts. In the city of Omelas, the boy needs to be locked up so that the rest of the citizens can live joyous lives. Most might say that the way the boy is treated is cruel and inhumane, but it is necessary so that none of the citizens can complain about problems in their lives. If they can’t complain about problems, since their troubles aren’t nearly as bad as the boy’s they can not be sad or down.
Ethics Awareness Inventory which is where I did my assessment which supports my principles that human beings are entitled to basic rights; consequently, actions have to respect the rights of others. Someone who does not respect other people is not respected person. This person has to treat others the way he would like to be treated. As individuals we suppose to have the right to make our own decision, and if those decisions affect others in a harm way we already know there are consequences for those who attend to break the laws they could have everything in their own way regardless of whom pays the consequence. Those unethical behaviors we could not accept, because that will have affected in us all.
On the other hand, the school of freedom or free will believe that the behavior of humans is unpredictable on the basis of precedents but it is a choice of an individual. He can choose to behave and act the way he wants to do such action. Therefore, free will hold the individual responsible for his or her action and behavior. Now, the theory of free will is subjective in its nature and, thus, rejects the scientific explanation of the behavior. The history is full of philosophers who are advocates of determinism, but the freewill school of thought has also been a subject of argument in the history.
For every action that a person makes, there is an influence or motivation, for example his own nature and the way he makes decisions, or his upbringing, and the way he has been brought up to think. People who act on their own would include leaders, hermits and those in authoritative positions. Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher, believed that man is selfish and evil and that society is needed to tame them. The values of a larger society would then include traits such as being civilized and would ideally restrain man to act in that way. However, individual behavior, or the actions of a typical person will tend to be influenced by his own values instead of those of his community, which have a weaker hold on him.
Questioning the ideas and decisions of people in authority is crucial to the advancement and development of their self-cognitive thinking and discovery. Everyone has their own idea of ethics and morality, but figures of authority including teachers, heads of nations, or other positions of power, may not always be in line that morality. In order to determine whether a figure of authority is doing what is just, individuals must speak out when they perceive injustice. That means that they must question the authority. Dystopian novels often portray systems of national leadership in which questioning the authority of the government is explicitly forbidden.
When left to their own devices, and given shelter from the corrupt social system that keeps them down, the migrants make the first steps toward establishing an almost utopian mini-society. Moreover, life in Weed patch disproves the landowners’ beliefs that “Okies” lead undignified, uncivilized lives. Indeed, the migrants show themselves to be more civilized than the landowners, as demonstrated by the way in which they respond to the Farmers’ Association’s plot to sabotage the camp. Most of the wealthy landowners believe that poverty-stricken, uneducated farmers deserve to be treated contemptuously. These men maintain that to reward farmers with amenities such as toilets, showers, and comfortable wages will merely give them a sense of entitlement, embolden them to ask for more, and thus create social and economic unrest.