Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
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
The environmental ethics is a biological objective that challenge the separation of science and ethics (1991, Holmes Rolston). Environmental ethics has a way to escape relativism of ethics, and have a way to give up on cultural ethics. The individuals in the world has their view on ethics as our culture and heritage with the natural existence of the human culture. Environmental ethics is a mix up of culture because the evaluation of nature and wild nature individuals interact
Consequential is a type of ethical theory; it’s built upon moral views of acts, rules, etc. purely due to the consideration of their consequences, where the norm of consideration is worked as the norm of non-moral goodness. Happiness is a part of acquiring what could be an unsatisfying truth that we do not have a solid handle of our control or impact in our world; giving into the greatest good, as well as, ignoring what can bring negativity. It is important to make the best out of life as possible that represent positive and negative, and take the rest as life wants to give it. The theory of “good” and bad is really not a matter of concern; we have our own particular views, so what can be bad may actually be good.
Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42). Since we cannot look at each client individually to determine whether or not Dr. Smith’s confidentiality policy is morally justifiable (it may be for one client, but not for another), we cannot properly answer this question using act-based utilitarianism. Rule-based utilitarianism, on the other hand, changes the basic utilitarianism’s principle from “everyone should always act to bring about the greatest good (i.e., “happiness”) for all
The role of our conscience is also a reason a follower of a religious ethic would use to support their objection. Firstly, Natural Law is a deontological theory and does not look at the individual needs or situation; it considers the act of euthanasia or ‘the act of killing’ itself. The preservation and protection of life is a primary precept and should absolutely be followed. Euthanasia goes against this. A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason.
Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism. However, James Lovelock argued that according to GAIA theory the world changes, adapts and amends itself in order to survive and the human race is of little significance. Humans do not control nature, nature is in control. Philosophical determinism, like all forms of hard determinism, is based on the theory of Universal Causation. This is the belief that everything in the universe including all human actions and choices has a cause.
The Law of Nature is the known difference between right and wrong. That is, man’s distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Lewis also believes we as humans have a primal instinct, although this is not what he means by the moral law. Lewis says: “I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the moral law... Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.”(Lewis 9).
It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
Explain moral relativism. (25 marks) The theory of moral relativism is an ethical approach to situation ethics which asserts that there are no universally true moral principles, as all moral principles held by a person or society are relative to their circumstances, culture and religion - this means that there are no actions which are and will always be wrong. Instead, if an action seems good to you then for you it is morally right and vice versa, however there is no way that we are able to objectively identify which opinion is the correct one. A soft form of moral relativism is Cultural Relativism which states that moral codes differ from culture to culture or from religion to religion, for example some cultures believe polygamy or arranged marriages to be morally right, whereas a catholic society would believe that monogamy is the only moral way of life. Subjective Relativism on the other hand is a much more extreme stem of moral relativism as it is based on the view of an individual alone and therefore then can be absolutely no debate as all values are relative.