Self interest must be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right’ Assess this view. If self interest was to be disregarded when deciding what actions are morally right would it mean that I must disregard myself when deciding which actions are morally right despite the consequences? Subsequently, whether I act without regard to myself has no effect on whether the action is moral or not. However, is it rational to not take into account the effect actions may cause? Is it possible to act in a way which also benefits me?
I will try to show some logical contradictions that occur even if we ignore this is-ought problem. One maxim of moral relativism which will form the basis of the following arguments is “There is no “universal truth” in ethics—that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times” (Rachels 1986, p. 421). I will compare this claim to others made by relativists and attempt to show that this central claim of relativism is violated by the others. “The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.” (Rachels 1986, p. 421) This is the central claim of moral relativism, the single claim that sums it up best. It is a very interesting claim though, because it states what is right, not within a single society, but within all societies.
“It’s true for me if I believe it,” says moral relativism. In the same breath, it argues “if it is acceptable in my culture to torture people (for any reason), then I am accountable only to the constraints of my society’s beliefs of what is right, and not to any other standard of moral truth”. In asserting itself, moral relativism embodies the concept of ‘that’s true for you but not for me’ and implies that this moral disagreement between cultures leads to the conclusion there can be no absolute moral truth. In this essay, I will firstly outline briefly the arguments for moral relativism before countering them with reasons why the arguments are implausible. Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth.
According to Kant, obedience to a hypothetical imperative is not truly moral behaviour. Only when we obey categorical imperatives are we behaving in a truly moral fashion. It is wrong to break a promise, according to Kant, not because in doing so we may lose the trust of others but because in making a promise we have brought upon ourselves a moral obligation and therefore, it is our duty to keep it. If we resist the temptation to steal only because we don't want to get caught we are not behaving morally. We are behaving morally, on the other hand, if we resist because we believe it is wrong to steal and that by stealing we would be treating someone else as a means to an end (e.g.
The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutism. The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture). As with scepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas. 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.
The terms morality and ethics are not always interchangeable. Ethics is broader. Ethics deals with what is generally right and wrong and morality with what is right and wrong in relations between people. There is ethical behavior that does not bother with whether it is moral or immoral. Decisions involving other people are moral choices.
• The only moral rule of agapeistic love – thinking of other before yourself and acting in accordance to that – encourages people to act in regards to the well-being of others than themselves. Surely this makes society a better place? Weaknesses: • Excludes a majority of universal truths. • The idea of love being an absolute moral principle defeats the major point of situation ethics. Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory.
According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. There is also an individual form of moral relativism. Thus, this is where morality varies between individuals, it is called subjectivism. Subjectivism, on the other hand, involves our beliefs or perceptions, in figuring out what is good and what is bad. Narveson explains subjectivity through morals, which he believes to be “subjective.” Narveson believes that “they are merely a “matter of opinion,” there being no such thing as moral knowledge, nothing about can be really correct or incorrect” (Narveson, MM, p. 3).Thus, whether peanut butter tastes good, for example, varies from person to person; for some people this is true, for others it is false.
humanism vs religion Humanism VS Religion Humanism is a system of thought which rejects the supernatural, any belief in a God, etc, but holds that human interests and the human mind are paramount, that human are capable of solving the problems of the world and deciding what is or is not correct moral behavior (credo reference). The article I found from the opposing view points resource center are “Secular Humanism Is Harmful” by Tim LaHaye and “Secular Humanism Should Be Promoted” by Robert F. Morse. Both of these articles explain their point of view thoroughly and thoughtfully. After reading these articles it was hard for me to decide what I actually support. As mentioned by Tim LaHaye, “secular humanism is a dangerous worldview that exalts man’s knowledge rather than God’s wisdom” (1).
People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view. The main point favoring the cultural relativism argument is that if there are no moral principles, then the principles can only be relative to culture. If someone were to express their opinion about the morals of a culture that they didn’t agree with, including what the culture already believed to be right, then that person would lose the argument without any question. This can be easily disproved because in one culture, not every person is going to have the same moral judgments about what is right or wrong and people can establish objective moral principles. A culture also can’t think of them as having the power to decide which is right and