on the nature of and justification for value judgments about what is right and what is wrong. ! Each of these theories has had many supporters throughout history and each continues to have supporters now.
on the nature of and justification for value judgments about what is right and what is wrong. ! Each of these theories has had many supporters throughout history and each continues to have supporters now. ! In evaluating each of these theories consider how well supported it is by the argument given as well as any positive and negative implications it may have.
life isn’t that there is no answer, it’s that there are so many answers.” Ruth Benedict was an American anthropologist whose studies of other cultures convinced her that there was no one set of universally valid values.
about the meaning of terms such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument Relativism claims that the whole idea of universally valid values is mistaken, since value judgments depend on one’s perspective. Although this may seem to be an appealing approach to value judgments, it has its problems.
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument The major argument for cultural relativism asserts that the fact of cultural diversity negates the possibility of their being universal values. But is this really valid reasoning?
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument The premise of this argument is certainly true. But then what follows from this fact?
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument Note that the conclusion makes a much stronger claim than the premise does. It says that because we disagree on something nobody could possibly be correct. But this just doesn’t follow, hence this argument is INVALID.
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument Not only is the main argument for relativism invalid, this position also implies that nothing is just plain wrong – not even genocide – as long as somebody believes that it is acceptable.
such as “right” and ”wrong.” Thus nothing is truly right or wrong, only right or wrong from a particular perspective. the cultural differences argument But what if different cultures agree deep down on basic values even if they may implement those values in widely divergent ways?
is good and pleasant only because it is connected to Him. Use it apart from its Source, and it will come to taste bitter. ” Augustine converted to Christianity as an adult and then went on to become one of the most influential Christian writers of all times; his ideas made an indelible mark on the young religion. He defended the idea that God’s will determines what is right and wrong.
way for moral commands to be objective and binding is for them to have been issued by an absolute moral authority. There are some objective and binding moral commands, some things we just shouldn’t do. So there must be an absolute moral au- thority and this is God. the argument from moral authority
be objective and binding is for them to have been issued by an absolute moral authority. There are some objective and binding moral commands, some things we just shouldn’t do. So there must be an absolute moral au- thority and this is God. the argument from moral authority Divine command theory argues that we can only make sense of moral ideas if they are based on the commands of an ultimate moral authority.
be objective and binding is for them to have been issued by an absolute moral authority. There are some objective and binding moral commands, some things we just shouldn’t do. So there must be an absolute moral au- thority and this is God. the argument from moral authority This seems like a strong claim, but some things seem like they are just wrong no matter what – such as killing babies for fun.
be objective and binding is for them to have been issued by an absolute moral authority. There are some objective and binding moral commands, some things we just shouldn’t do. So there must be an absolute moral au- thority and this is God. the argument from moral authority Although this argument is valid, there is a difficult problem with trying to base moral rules on divine commands.
be objective and binding is for them to have been issued by an absolute moral authority. There are some objective and binding moral commands, some things we just shouldn’t do. So there must be an absolute moral au- thority and this is God. the argument from moral authority If God says that murder is wrong, does this mean that if He had said murder was OK, would this make it so? If not, then how can God be the source of moral rules?
law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law. ” Aquinas held that being ethical involved living up to one’s potential as a self- governing, rational being, whose passions are held in check. He followed Aristotle in thinking that all natural things have an “end” or natural goal built-in to them although unlike Aristotle he thought that this end was built-in to us by God.
have a set of built-in functions and capacities. Realizing these natural functions and capacities is better than not doing so. So human nature provides a guide for ethical action. the argument from moral authority
functions and capacities. Realizing these natural functions and capacities is better than not doing so. So human nature provides a guide for ethical action. the argument from moral authority Natural law theory claims that some things are inherently wrong: those things that violate the natural functions and capacities built in to us.
functions and capacities. Realizing these natural functions and capacities is better than not doing so. So human nature provides a guide for ethical action. the argument from moral authority Is what is natural always what is best?
functions and capacities. Realizing these natural functions and capacities is better than not doing so. So human nature provides a guide for ethical action. the argument from moral authority Isn’t it up to us to decide what is right and what is wrong, whatever human nature may tell us?
are nothing but – my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you.” Max Stirner was a German philosopher who held that all actions are by definition self-centered since we all must act on the basis of our own plans and ideas. Perhaps he was a product of his own times, the early days of industrial capitalism in Europe when workers were ruthlessly exploited in appalling condi- tions as documented by Charles Dickens and Karl Marx.
made by individuals based on their own understanding and interests. Thus all decisions made by anyone must be self-serving and any apparently altruistic action must have an underlying selfish motive. in defense of psychological egoism
their own understanding and interests. Thus all decisions made by anyone must be self-serving and any apparently altruistic action must have an underlying selfish motive. in defense of psychological egoism Psychological egoism claims that we cannot, by definition, act for the sake of others.
their own understanding and interests. Thus all decisions made by anyone must be self-serving and any apparently altruistic action must have an underlying selfish motive. in defense of psychological egoism If this is the case then morality would be a pointless thing to try to follow.
their own understanding and interests. Thus all decisions made by anyone must be self-serving and any apparently altruistic action must have an underlying selfish motive. in defense of psychological egoism But doesn’t this theory paint an excessively cynical view of human beings? We can certainly interpret all action in terms of hidden motives, but does this mean that is all that moves us?
is precisely the self that cannot and must not be sacrificed.” Ayn Rand was a highly influential novelist who emigrated from Russia to the U.S. She defended the capitalist idea that the good of all was only to be achieved by ignoring the demands of others and pursuing selfish gain. Among her contemporary followers are Alan Greenspan and Ron Paul who named his son Rand after her.
human value is the value of the individual. Acting for the sake of others requires denying the value of the individual. Thus one should never act for the sake of others. Rand’s argument against altruism
of the individual. Acting for the sake of others requires denying the value of the individual. Thus one should never act for the sake of others. Rand’s argument against altruism Aren’t there also values to be found in cooperative activity?
of the individual. Acting for the sake of others requires denying the value of the individual. Thus one should never act for the sake of others. Rand’s argument against altruism Is life really a “zero sum game,” in which my benefit requires your loss?
of the individual. Acting for the sake of others requires denying the value of the individual. Thus one should never act for the sake of others. Rand’s argument against altruism Is it always rational to ignore others’ interests?
social rules we should expect “continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thomas Hobbes was the first modern political philosopher. He thought that social rules – moral and political – should be based on self- interest. We all have an interest in living under the rule of law rather than in the anarchy of the “state of nature.”.
allegiance to rules only if they serve our interests. Social rules are in our best interests to follow since living by them is better than fending for ourselves. So we should follow the basic rules of society and trade some individual liberty for the rule of law. In Defense of the Social Contract
they serve our interests. Social rules are in our best interests to follow since living by them is better than fending for ourselves. So we should follow the basic rules of society and trade some individual liberty for the rule of law. In Defense of the Social Contract We all share basic interests such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
they serve our interests. Social rules are in our best interests to follow since living by them is better than fending for ourselves. So we should follow the basic rules of society and trade some individual liberty for the rule of law. In Defense of the Social Contract In a state of nature we have greater liberty, but also much greater insecurity than in society‘.
they serve our interests. Social rules are in our best interests to follow since living by them is better than fending for ourselves. So we should follow the basic rules of society and trade some individual liberty for the rule of law. In Defense of the Social Contract Even if we may have an interest in accepting basic rules, what if the payoff for cheating on these rules is high enough to tempt us to cheat?
they serve our interests. Social rules are in our best interests to follow since living by them is better than fending for ourselves. So we should follow the basic rules of society and trade some individual liberty for the rule of law. In Defense of the Social Contract What if we could get away with not paying taxes, or otherwise taking advantage of “public goods” for private gain – why shouldn’t we?
holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” John Stuart Mill was a British economist, philosopher and social reformer. He assumed that humans were self- interested, yet that we could also be convinced to act for the good of others. Mills philosophy of utilitarianism remains popular to this day among economists and policy makers.
after the same thing – happiness. There is no reason why my happiness should be considered more important than anyone else’s happiness So we should always act to maximize overall happiness, by choosing what leads to the greatest benefit for the most people involved. An argument for utilitarianism
There is no reason why my happiness should be considered more important than anyone else’s happiness So we should always act to maximize overall happiness, by choosing what leads to the greatest benefit for the most people involved. An argument for utilitarianism Even if different things might make different people happy we all share the quest for happiness.
There is no reason why my happiness should be considered more important than anyone else’s happiness So we should always act to maximize overall happiness, by choosing what leads to the greatest benefit for the most people involved. An argument for utilitarianism If happiness is valuable in itself then what reason can I have for saying that my happiness counts but yours doesn’t?
There is no reason why my happiness should be considered more important than anyone else’s happiness So we should always act to maximize overall happiness, by choosing what leads to the greatest benefit for the most people involved. An argument for utilitarianism Utilitarianism bases the value of an action purely on the consequences of that action.
a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” Kant was a major figure in the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. He sought to provide a rational basis for the values of the French Revolution – liberty, equality, fraternity.
involves assuming that others will follow the rules I break. An act can be a moral act only if it can be universally accepted. Selfish action cannot be universally accepted since it contradicts itself. So selfish action is fundamentally wrong. Kant’s argument for universal morality
follow the rules I break. An act can be a moral act only if it can be universally accepted. Selfish action cannot be universally accepted since it contradicts itself. So selfish action is fundamentally wrong. Kant’s argument for universal morality If I lie or make false promises I am assuming that you value telling the truth and keeping one’s promises otherwise you’d never take me at my word.
follow the rules I break. An act can be a moral act only if it can be universally accepted. Selfish action cannot be universally accepted since it contradicts itself. So selfish action is fundamentally wrong. Kant’s argument for universal morality To say that something is morally acceptable or unacceptable is to make an unconditional claim.
follow the rules I break. An act can be a moral act only if it can be universally accepted. Selfish action cannot be universally accepted since it contradicts itself. So selfish action is fundamentally wrong. Kant’s argument for universal morality What makes immoral action wrong is that it fails to treat others as equals by acting on a double standard.
follow the rules I break. An act can be a moral act only if it can be universally accepted. Selfish action cannot be universally accepted since it contradicts itself. So selfish action is fundamentally wrong. Kant’s argument for universal morality This is the basis for the idea that there are universal human rights – fundamental limits in the way we should treat each other.
men and women may speak different languages that they assume are the same, using similar words to encode disparate experiences of self and social relationships.”
men and women may speak different languages that they assume are the same, using similar words to encode disparate experiences of self and social relationships.” Carol Gilligan refused to accept that standard models of moral development did justice to the moral experience of women.
that morality requires following impartial and universal rules. This “masculine” approach to moral decision-making leaves out “feminine” concerns with concrete relationships. A complete picture of morality requires balancing abstract rules with particular relationships. Gilligan’s argument
impartial and universal rules. This “masculine” approach to moral decision-making leaves out “feminine” concerns with concrete relationships. A complete picture of morality requires balancing abstract rules with particular relationships. Gilligan’s argument The dominant theory of moral development, that of Lawrence Kohlberg, argues that moral ma- turity requires following universal rules regardless of the human costs involved.
impartial and universal rules. This “masculine” approach to moral decision-making leaves out “feminine” concerns with concrete relationships. A complete picture of morality requires balancing abstract rules with particular relationships. Gilligan’s argument In Kohlberg’s tests female subjects tended to focus on social contexts at the expense of universal rules.
impartial and universal rules. This “masculine” approach to moral decision-making leaves out “feminine” concerns with concrete relationships. A complete picture of morality requires balancing abstract rules with particular relationships. Gilligan’s argument Rather than accept that these subjects were “under-developed” Gilligan defends the idea of differing and complementary moral “voices.”
impartial and universal rules. This “masculine” approach to moral decision-making leaves out “feminine” concerns with concrete relationships. A complete picture of morality requires balancing abstract rules with particular relationships. Gilligan’s argument Do men and women have different moral “styles?”
geoslack
signer
matleenalaakso
cbtlibrary
copilot
karlov
asial_edu
o_ob
colly
jrom
tmm1
chriscoyier
jponch
eileencodes
stephaniewalter
samanthasiow
kneath
jnunemaker
jeffersonlam
malarkey
