Can we make the assumption that evil is just a division of a clear good? Maybe even a good thing overall? If it is necessary, those who decide to act with evil are merely enduring good values. Gardner shows a great example of the balance of good and evil in his novel Grendel, through Grendel’s interactions with humans and how he defines their
The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean? Are we expressing opinions are are we stating a matter of fact? It’s important that we state what we mean by the terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in order to have a meaningful conversations. So do moral statements have objective meaning? The answer to this question will vary.
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
One may interpret the primary precepts in their own way which makes obeying g-d's rules more specific to each individual. However this may be difficult in some cases due to the fact that one may initially do an act that is good, yet the result of which turns out bad. Natural law supports the idea that there are two types of good; Actual Good and Apparent. Real good is the right thing to do, an act that fits the human ideal. Apparent good is something which seems to be the correct way to act initially but does not
Choose In the essay “Doing Better but Feeling Worse: The Paradox of Choice” by Barry Schwartz and Andrew Ward, explains the fundamental need to choose. All humans have fundamental needs and one of those needs is to have the freedom of choice. Schwartz and Andrew explain that having options to choose from is good; however, it is not always good. Having too many varieties to choose from can be hazardous. As Schwartz and Andrew explains an experiment done by Iyengar and Lepper on different varieties of jam as well as quantity.
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
Dewey believes we consider these more as abilities that exist far from our impulsive desires. So in short, bad habits are acts that make us feel shameful, good habits are admirable. John Dewey mentions though out his writing on habits and will WE are our habit. Now even though I do not entirely comprehend all the points he makes through out the writing, I do know that he mentions several times that to fix or undo our bad habits we must replace with an equally energizing habit that is of goodness. Also to go along with that, you must be able to have more than solely will power to defy a habit.
Therefore, imperialism can be positive or negative, depending on where you are from and your beliefs. Imperialism can help both nations, but it will be helping the stronger nation more than it helps the weaker nation. So while it helps the stronger nation, it can hinder the lives of the people of the weaker nation. I believe that although it may have a few positive affects, imperialism is still more negative. Imperialism is still more negative.
Comparing these two contrasting views on morals is not as easy as one would think. It could be argued that the comparison is either right or wrong. However, this is not the case. Comparing two colors in the shade of red is not like comparing blue and yellow. The same can be said when speaking of a relativist and an absolutist.