Ethics And The Argument On The Existence Of Subjective Moral Value

Morals are relative to cultures and individuals. The same activity can have different moral values depending on a particular society, culture or persons. For instance, many people in the Western world consider killing to be bad. But are all instances of killing bad? Is it morally right to kill a killer? For one with objectivism beliefs, all killings are bad versus one with relativism beliefs would say “let us look at the entire

Morality exists throughout all cultures and religions of the world in some shape or form. In

Hypothetical imperative is the "practical necessity of some possible action as a means to achieving something else that one does or might want" as defined in page 19 of Bennett’s translation, whereas categorical is an action that is "objectively necessary in itself without regard to any other end" (Bennett, 19). When Kant says "We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in fact we can never, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions," in page 19, he is suggesting that even though human beings think that there only exists principled and virtuous thoughts in ourselves, there lies greater motivations and reasons behind our actions.

In this paper, I am going to explain what two moral theories I mainly use to make a moral decision. In this paper, I used the textbook to help me figure out what moral theories are and it helped me decide which moral theories to use that best fit me when I make moral decisions. The two moral theories that I chose to highlight in this paper are utilitarianism and cultural relativism because I believe that they are the two that best fit me when I make a moral decision. The definition of morals is “a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is or is not acceptable for them to do”. Morals are an important thing to have because it is good to know what is and isn’t

Mackie examines one aspect of the origin of objectivity with the argument from relativity. This well-known issue surrounds the fact that different societies enforce vastly different and incompatible moral codes. Within each code, its rules are believed to have objective authority, so it is indirectly argued that there seems to be no objective truths underlying these supposedly objective rules. Mackie adds that even general principles that could

Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as an action that addresses what "should" or "ought" to be done. He believed that the necessity of performing a certain action was based on other desires. This particular action would only be important if it was beneficial for another reason. It is prudent that a man feel the responsibility to achieve his own wants. However, Kant speaks of a second group of imperatives known as "categorical imperatives."

To base morality on a system of hypothetical imperatives, Foot begins by explaining Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative can be contrasted with a categorical imperative in that it commands an “action that is good to some

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives,” Philippa Foot argues that moral judgments are in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives are actions that are good in themselves and do not depend on desires, while, hypothetical imperatives are “actions that are good to some purpose” (306). According to Foot, hypothetical imperatives alone serve as the basis of moral judgments because categorical imperatives give us no reason to obey them. In this paper, I will explain foots argument that moral judgments are hypothetical imperatives. I will then argue that that Foot’s theory of moral judgments fails in two ways. First, placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives fails to designate moral from immoral contingent ends, and second, the hypothetical imperative weakens morality by making it too optional. To show this, I will first argue that placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives begs the question of what is the moral basis of its own contingent end. I will then propose a decision procedure for determining the moral value of the contingent ends of hypothetical imperatives. Then I will argue that the Leningrad does not solve and that basing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives still makes morality too optional.

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” by Phillipa Foot the author first starts off the article by explaining that moral judgements are either categorical imperatives or hypothetical imperatives. The author then begins her argument that moral judgements are in fact hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives by tearing down the idea that moral judgments can be categorical imperatives. The author makes the argument against categorical imperatives by making a comparison between “should” and “ought” (308). The author states the idea that coercion cannot be the reason for following moral judgments. I have the inclination to agree with the author because the arguments made by Kant’s previous paper are unclear and

Morality must be objectively derived because (1) the concepts of good and morality exist; (2) cultures differ regarding certain moral actions, thus there is the need to discover which is right but cultures are similar regarding the existence of and need for morality; (3) relativism is not logical and does not work, (4) for moral principles to be legitimate and consistent, they must be derived external to human societies. Otherwise morality is merely one person's choice or feeling, not an understanding of truth; and (5) the existence of religion. People recognize a moral aspect to the worship of deity; even if the deity does not exist, we still perceive a need for morality to be decreed by Someone

Furthermore, J.L. Mackie calls his outlook on morality, moral skepticism that is about objective facts. “Mackie offers three arguments for

There is more to these arguments that once they are well analyzed they are read differently with another meaning to them. These arguments are against objective values. “Since morality is a product of culture, there can’t be objective moral truths” (Shafer-Landau, P. 205). The problem with this quote is that what a culture produces can express truths about how people live.

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).

Morality is defined as what we do based on our human reason that is either right or wrong. Morality is concerned with what we do and how we act in our everyday life. In order to live a moral life, one must live by the virtues, respond to the call of God in our lives, and develop a character that resembles a life of virtue.

Morality refers to the concept of proper human action in terms of "right and wrong," also referred to as "good and evil. According to Hobbes (1994:11), morality is simply a declaration of rules and beliefs that are considered absolute guides for human behaviour. According to Hare (1981:27), “Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions, are right or wrong.” Moral values and graciousness, in the past, were prominent in most teenagers. Every individual has capacity for growth. But a seed cannot grow without nurturing. And farmers don’t get to neglect their crops. So moral values has to be inculcated from infancy. Many years