Moderate Objectivism By Pojman And Fieser

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

When discussing ethics and the similarities of the different lenses one should explain what the lenses are. A description of the differences in which each theory addresses ethics and morality. A personal experience can be used to explain virtue,

Jesse Prinz is a man who defends moral relativism as opposed to moral objectivism. To be able to understand the argument between moral relativism and moral objectivism they must first be defined. Moral relativism is a claim that is only true or false relative to some variable and not absolutely. This variable could be things such as culture, place, or society. This means two different truths that contradict each other could both be considered true depending on the culture. Moral objectivism is a claim that is either true or false absolutely. This means no matter the time, place, or culture there is one certain moral truth. This makes answering moral questions easier because there is a moral fact that is the correct answer. I will go into detail and explain why Prinz defends moral relativism. Because I do not think Prinz gives a strong argument, I will then criticize Prinz’s argument, giving reasons why moral objectivism is the more logical of the two because it gives us one correct answer based off of a universal standard.

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

Any incident in which a line designated for oxygen or other gas to be delivered to a patient contains the wrong gas or is contaminated with toxic substances.

In science, an artifact is not part of the results and unrelated to what you observe. It is an interference in a given experiment. Four examples of artifacts would include a higher voltage than 50 in the EEG due to the movement of muscles, the interference from the rotation of eyes resulting in recordings of an EOG instead of an EEG, the movement of the electrodes (especially near the mastoid process of the temporal bone), and a disturbance of the subject sneezing or coughing. Yes, including artifacts in the analysis of the experiment would help explain the deviation from the expected or anticipated results.

Louis Vaughn states that the purpose of morality is not to describe how things are, but to “prescribe how things should be” (2). In Philosophy, moral relativism and moral objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law is written. In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief.

5 artifacts are Jessica’s prosthetic leg, running leg, Lucas the bear, Jessica's running shoes, and her zip-up sweats. Jessica's prosthetic leg is important because it didn't show her wound. Jessica’s running leg is important because she can’t run without it and it’s important to her. Lucas the bear is important to Jessica because Fiona got her the bear when she was in the hospital. Jessica’s running shoes are important because she needs the to run and if she doesn't have them then she can't run. Jessica’s zip-up sweats are important because they made her look like she had a

15. Rachels, James. (2003) The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th edition. University of Alabama at Birmingham. (Page 100)

The idea of values merely being subjective are a denial of the need and possibility of morality. Consequently, if morality is not present there will be no need to determine which values should be accepted as well as an acceptable standard of how an individual should act. Emotions are left to rule over to make the decisions. Where no moral judgement is practised then justice is impossible and crimes cannot be punished. This journal article further illustrates the problem with ethical subjectivism. If subjective preferences determine our ethical conceptions then no conception is inferior or superior to the other. However as we attempt to determine what constitutes an ethical conduct we do in fact find that certain ethical conceptions are superior to others. For example, in the context of the holocaust, we deem the sanctity of human life and non-discrimination as superior over the preservation and propagation of the Aryan race. Within Chapter 2 Lewis highlights one of the most intriguing aspects of human nature is that morals do not change but rather, they evolve. The sympathies of the average person have substantially grown within modern society as opposed to the past hundred years. There is now a significant development in the moral beliefs regarding issues such as the rights of women, racial discrimination, child labour and the abuse of animals for public entertainment. The main reason for this advancement in our moral view of society is our contact and association with other people. When we share common interests with others and strive towards one goal we are able to extend our affection to others as we share in their human nature. Even an increase in travel and the access to international communication has allowed us to encounter more people than any other generation in history. The conclusion of part 3 of the

From a non-theistic point of view, Thomas Nagel proposes an objectivist/ realist view of values and morality. Evaluate his proposal and argue: 1. Why it is or is not a viable, defensible approach. 2. In his review of Nagel’s work, “Slouching Towards Theism,” J. P. Moreland suggest Nagel’s position tends toward theism or some form of Divine Command, even though Nagel addresses theistic-based ethics and rejects and believes that objectivism in ethics can be defended without appeal to a god.

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

Objectivism vs. Collectivism The society in which the story takes place upholds virtues of collectivism which hinder the ability of individuals such as, Howard Roark, in their attempt at success in the world according to their own personal standards. When respectively analyzed, it becomes apparent that Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey possess very different characteristics. Roark represents the ideal man who follows reason and stays loyal to himself in his pursuit to obtain his goal of becoming an architect, while Toohey seeks to paint a persona of self-sacrifice and honorable judgment to lure people into trusting him and gaining control over them. Through the encounter between the two men at the end of Part Two of the novel it becomes evident

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the

The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) believes in the reasonable and free compliance of one’s will to follow and abide by the moral law. This position provides an ethical foundation for what is recognized as morality. For Kant, the moral value of an act is not determined from its expected consequences, but from the representation of law itself.