...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was...
Words: 1932 - Pages: 8
...a) Explain the differences between absolute and relative morality. (25) To start, it is necessary to define the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' with reference to morality. Absolute means any theory in which the rules are absolute: they are unchanging and universal. Relative means any theory in which something is judged in relation to something else and is therefore open to change. Absolute laws or rules of morality will never change. Another way of putting this is that they are objective. Objective means that I am not bringing in any personal opinions or bias, so the rules that I work out are rules that anybody else would rationally come up with. We may come to work out these rules by use of reason and so any rational human being would be able to use his/her reason to come up with the same set of rules. For example, I may, using reason, work out that it is wrong to lie. An absolutist would think that it is therefore always wrong to lie, in any situation and in any culture. So it is just as wrong for me to lie about cheating on my boyfriend as it is to lie about the fact that Santa isn't real. And I can never think it is right to lie, even, to use Kant's famous example, if there was a murder at my door enquiring as to the whereabouts of my friend. If I knew my friend was hiding in my house, I would have to tell this to the murderer. In this situation, Kant would say that if I had lied to the murdered, and then in some strange coincidence my friend had left my house and was met...
Words: 1932 - Pages: 8
...three criteria discussed in class that must be met for your appeal to authority to be likely to get you the truth? -the expert appealed to must have published work in the field. * What are the ways discussed in class to determine what the consensus of experts believe about an issue? Professional Journals * Why is it important to rely on a consensus rather than individual experts views? Some experts just start drama, past experts have been wrong. Why is it important to rely on consensus rather than individual experts views? -a consensus is more likely to be correct * How is truth defined in class? As defined in class, a statement is true and only true if it matches up with the way things are. * What are the main points of each of the Quickie Arguments? Morality does not equal legality, tradition, profit, standard procedure, not being responsible, offensive Which of the following is one of the points to be drawn from the failure of the Quickie Arguments discussed in class? -something being offensive doesn’t make it morally wrong. The point of one or more of the quickie arguments discussed in class was that -morality is not to be equated with what is frequently done,...
Words: 2864 - Pages: 12
...Dershowitz and Alan Keyes contended many issues on religion and morality. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believed that “morality can be maintained without religion.” He also stated that it must be maintained without religion because times have changed. He said that if religion is not separated from state it could have severe damage, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. Dershowitz believes that there is a difference between morality and religion. When people are moral without religion, they are being virtuous on their own, not because they are afraid of God. He stated that religion should not consist of a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Alan Keyes, a former Republican presidential candidate, stated that religion sets the standard for what’s moral. Keyes argued “power only ultimately respects another power,” and Martin Luther King Jr. was not a preacher byaccident. Dershowitz also stated that not everything in the Bible should be believed word-for-word, even George Washington said “indulge religion with caution.” Keyes believed that if state and religion should be separated, then why does the Declaration of Independence contain so much about religion? Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes would have argued endlessly about religion’s role in society if there were not a moderator to stop them. Religion and morality exist together in parallel according to Alan Keyes. Alan Dershowitz stated that if religion and morality are not separated, it could have negative discourse. James Fowler...
Words: 1152 - Pages: 5
...Examine the View that Morality is Dependent on Religion. (21 Marks) There are three main views for Morality and religion: Morality is dependent on religion, morality is Independent of religion and morality is opposed to religion. There is a myriad of reasons for and against each of these statements. Many people do believe that morality does depend on religion for reasons such as that western law was originally based on Biblical principles, for example stealing and murder. For many however the question is how morality should be linked with religious faith, even though this causes problems between secularists and religious believers. The view I’m going to explore mainly in this essay is the view that ‘morality is dependent on religion’. People who believe that religion and morality are linked would argue that you cannot have morality without religion and that all rules come from God as he is the source of Religion. This is backed up by the fact that even social laws created to run western countries are taken from religious books such as, the Bible. Many people who believe the statement morality is dependent on religion would be Absolutists and believe that we should never question moral codes or there is ever a time when moral codes should be lenient. Absolutists would have no emotion to a situation and would therefore condemn situation ethics as they would believe the answer to a problem is always the same no matter the situation. This is because an absolutist would...
Words: 1039 - Pages: 5
...relativism”). Ethical Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong is dependent upon what one’s culture believes is right or wrong. In short, if your society or culture BELIEVES that some action is morally wrong, then it IS morally wrong for everyone within that society. Businesspeople often claim something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs about morality. 2. Therefore, there are no objective facts about morality. Lots of people disagree about moral issues. There are heated debates...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...On Kohlberg’s scale, I consider myself to be at Level II, conventional morality. On that scale I am on stage II. I tend to follow the laws and my morality is based on good interpersonal relationship and that is based on my family, church and community. Kohlberg defines conventional morality as conforming to roles and conforming to the accepted morals that our environment and society has determined to be moral. (DeGeorge, Pg 22) I know what is considered to be right or wrong and I do not have a problem in determining what is right and wrong according to the values and morals that my parents have instilled in me since I was a young child. As I transitioned into an adult, I realize that morality is a sense of judgment. I usually follow my instincts and the feeling that I get deep down inside to guide my ethical and moral decisions and I use society, laws and my conformity to the norms established in my life as my checks and balance for those societal accepted moral judgments. I make my determination by asking questions and putting myself in the position of others. I would like to one day progress to the Level III, the postconvential, autonomous, or principal and raise questions regarding how society determines those established society norms and why. My goal is to discover how the norms of morality in society is developed, accepted and why. (DeGeorge, Page 24) I know that stealing is wrong, and I don’t think about stealing because society has determined that taking...
Words: 334 - Pages: 2
...be moral at all. You must first have faith in God in order to have any capacity for morality. Faith in God is the only true basis of morality. Socrates: It sounds like being an atheist is an unfortunate state of being. Preacher: The atheists are most unfortunate Socrates. Socrates: Sadly, I am more unfortunate than the atheists. I do not even understand the nature of morality. Thus, I could not tell you whether or not you need to first believe in the gods in order to be moral. So I ask you to help me and teach me something important. Preacher: Of course, Socrates. That is why I am here. Socrates: Thank you my good friend. I would like you to answer a question. What is morality? Preacher: Morality is the expression of human behavior that is based on the knowledge of right and wrong. Socrates: And one must believe in the gods in order to know what is right and wrong? Preacher: Exactly. It is the knowledge of God, which comes through faith that gives us the ability to know right and wrong. And Socrates, there are no gods. There is only the one almighty God who created all things and redeems us through his son Jesus Christ. Socrates: I am afraid I have never been very good at understanding all the amazing stories about all the different gods. I must admit that I am very excited about the idea that knowing your God will also give me the knowledge of right and wrong. But there is just one thing I would like to understand, if you could instruct me...
Words: 619 - Pages: 3
...Morality Essay Is morality a biological or social construct? The term morality, according to Eysenck(2009) can be described by Shaffer (1993) as: "A set of principles or ideals, that help the individual to distinguish right from wrong and to act on this distinction.” Morality is important to society as it would not function effectively, unless there was some kind of agreement on what is right and wrong. There seems to be a universal human acceptance on what right or wrong should be. If you look cross culturally over time it seems to suggest we all follow a certain basic rule, one that, Matthew 7:2 from The New Testament sums up quite efficiently: “ For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging, is the standard by which you will be judged” This very widespread principle would amount to us as a society today in the 21st century as more common sense but where did morality actually come from? According to All About Science(2013), the Darwinian principles suggest, we are all a product of evolution, from a process called natural selection. Natural selection is the continuing process in which biological characteristics become either more or less common in a population. Meaning that: Individuals in a species that show a wide range of variation is because of differences within their genes. Individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, as the genes that allow these...
Words: 2036 - Pages: 9
...The Divine Command Theory is a clear theory on how to relate God to morality. The theory states that God commands what is right and what is wrong. Though God does not press his rules upon us, it is said that “if we live as we should, then we must follow God’s laws.” (Rachels, pg. 51) Though someone might believe in the existence of God, it is possible they can reject the Divine Command Theory. With examples such as the Euthyphro question, the Arbitrariness objection, and God’s authority, it makes it possible to reject this theory. One positive outlook to the Divine Command Theory is that people don’t need to reason about what is right or wrong and they do not need to reply on emotions because what they need to do is follow God’s commands. For example, God has commanded to be kind to thy neighbor, so with that command, why listen to instincts when we can listen to the words of God? If God had commanded us to do one good deed per day, that’s what we must listen to, not our own basic instincts on the matter. One problem with the Divine Command Theory is made evident by the famous quote: “Is an act holy because the gods command it, or do the gods command an act because it is holy?” This question is known as the Euthyphro question. Socrates’s question is about “whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they’re true.” (Rachels, pg. 52) As you can see, each of the dilemma’s horns presents a problem for the Divine Command Theory. If what is morally...
Words: 855 - Pages: 4
...deliberations on morality are useless is called a _______ subjectist Cynical A______truth is dependent on the subject’s own experience. Subjective A person who believes that whatever an individual says is right for that particular individual is called a _____ Relativist Hume believed that the only kind of truth that can be known is a _____ Truth Subjective The notion of ethical _________which is often mistaken and confused with Ethical relativism, doubts that any acts are right or wrong. | | Skepticism Moral decisions, determinations, and judgments are acknowledged and established in a cultural context, and these positions are subject to change depending on one’s cultural Relativism ______is the notion that there is no concrete certainty the sphere of knowledge and truth. Relativism An objective______ is a truth that is independent of an observer. Truth _________ is the notion that truth depends on context—the time, place, and the identity of the observer. Relativism The certainty of Descartes’ rationalism leads to the idea of absolute truth In the never-ending debate between relativism and dogmatism, most people agree that the solution for inclusivity is moderation People who argue that ethics and morality are subjective, and moral choices should be made on individual assessment, or societal allowances granted to the individual are called ethical relativists ------------------------------------------------- Approaching morality _______ ethics...
Words: 1397 - Pages: 6
...Morality is the decisions and actions one makes that are either wright or wrong. Lawrence Kohlberg a psychologist followed Piaget’s theory of morality. He came to the conclusion in his research that morality in individuals was developed in six stages. Through his research he studied a sample group of seventy two boys in Chicago. The ages of this group were ten, thirteen, and sixteen. He would later go on to research younger children and boys and girls from other cities in the United States and other countries (Crain 1985). Kohlberg was trying to figure out why some children acted how they did when it came to some moral dilemmas Stages of Moral Development Kohlberg theorized the development of moral behavior into six stages. The first stage is considered the preconvention level. At this stage a person behaviors morally or unmorally depending on the consequences of their behavior and rewards and self-interest (Coon & Mitterer, 2013). There are two stages at this level: obedience and punishment and stage two individualism and exchange. The conventional level is the second level and consists of two stages called Good Interpersonal Relationships and maintaining the social order. People act at this level to please others and to follow the rules and values of the group. The post conventional level is the highest level and consists of social contract and individual rights and Universal principals. Kohlberg states that the behavior of individuals at this level...
Words: 1026 - Pages: 5
...turn, are the main subject matter of ethics. This is why all areas of knowledge can be connected with ethics. History, Mathematics, Human sciences and others support kind of ethics, but to what extent do all of these help people to understand morality and make the right decisions? Knowing sometimes can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances. In the case of ethics it could help or hinder people knowing what to do. On the other hand, we all search for the real life reasons which will lead us the right way. Knowledge issues are sometimes controversial in Ethics, because quite often there is a conflict between two or more branches of, for example between social morality and the religious morality. Each person accepts and follows different kind of moral rules, under different cirsumstances. The controversies in the society what is right and what is wrong are huge. We either support some rules or do not. People often argue about their beliefs, no matter if they are religious or not. Such example could be given in history. To clarify, history is the study of the human past. It is a field of research which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of historical events, and it sometimes attempts to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine past events. On the other hand, ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses morality, that is, what is right and wrong, good and bad, honorable and dishonorable. A link between...
Words: 1210 - Pages: 5
...Cody Gut Dr. T. Nulty Philosophy 215 Introduction to Ethics April 12, 2012 Infanticide of Disabled Newborns Infanticide of a disabled newborn is the killing of a newborn baby who has been diagnosed with a disability. With the new technology that has been discovered in recent years newborns with disabilities can be kept alive through extraordinary lifesaving techniques. An example of this is newborns born with chronic cardiopulmonary disease which, “…is a disease that affects the normal functions of the heart and lungs that could disturb the complete physical, mental and social well being of individual”. (Violeta) Newborns born with this would not survive more then a few days without the extreme help of doctors and machines to keep the baby alive. Now what could happen is the newborn could be left alone and would die but not before sufficient suffering. Or the baby could be kept alive with machines that the doctors have, but the baby would also suffer and only be kept alive because of the machines. The third option is the baby could be killed quickly and painlessly, which would relieve suffering. The ethical issues that are involved in this case that are brought up by people are. 1. Nobody has the right to decide whether ones life is worth less than another’s. Thus meaning that one person cannot decide whether someone should live or die. 2. Everyone should be given a fighting chance to live. This means that maybe something miraculous happens and the baby pulls...
Words: 1334 - Pages: 6
...a few cultures. Rachels analyzes Cultural Relativism and justifies why it isn’t necessarily right or wrong. I have reviewed and thought about each of their arguments and have decided to side with James Rachels. The following paragraphs will be an attempt at showing why I believe both arguments seem to basically be equally strong with a slight lead by Ruth...
Words: 1844 - Pages: 8
