On this view, in an egalitarian society, all permanent adult members of society are equal citizens, equal in political rights and duties, including the right to an equal vote in democratic elections that determine who shall be top public officials and lawmakers responsible for enacting laws and public policies enforced on all.
One might reach a similar result by noting that even if persons are truly responsible for making some choices rather than others, what we could reasonably be held responsible for and what surely lies beyond our power to control run together to produce actual results and cannot be disentangled.
Ethics is concerned with other people's interests, with the interests of society, with God's interests, with "ultimate goods", and so on. This principle holds that any individuals in society with the same native talent and ambition should have the same prospects of success in competition for positions that confer special benefits and advantages.
This is the dream time. Yet another objection is that people behave in ways that render them more and less deserving, and monetary good fortune is among the types of things that people come to deserve differentially.
Social inequality might be affirmed either as morally wrong or as humanly bad, something a prudent person would seek to avoid.
The contemporary moral philosopher Thomas Scanlon holds that all people everywhere equally have the moral right to be treated according to the outcome of a procedure: Maybe hunting-gathering was more enjoyable, higher life expectancy, and more conducive to human flourishing — but in a state of sufficiently intense competition between peoples, in which agriculture with all its disease and oppression and pestilence was the more competitive option, everyone will end up agriculturalists or go the way of the Comanche Indians.
A second is that equality of resources as conceived in this construction supposes that the results of unchosen luck, but not chosen option luck, should be equalized.
Such a desire is currently being selected for, as are other traits that increase our propensity to reproduce. There have been several attempts to theoretically capture what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning.
Ethical realists think that human beings discover ethical truths that already have an independent existence. Under deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,  if it follows the rule or moral law. Psychologist James Blair has shown that psychopaths treat moral rules as mere conventions.
And I had two thoughts, crystal clear: See Fishkin and Brighouse and Swift One is that some moral debates have no resolution because the two sides have different basic values.
The ancient solution to the problem — perhaps an early inspiration to Fnargl — was to tell the slave to go do whatever he wanted and found most profitable, then split the profits with him.
For example, slave owners may have believed that their slaves were intellectually inferior, and Inuits who practiced infanticide may have been forced to do so because of resource scarcity in the tundra.
Following this train of thought, one might favor as guidelines for individual and public choice simple, easily understood, readily implementable rules that are to serve as proxies for the moral principles that are the ultimate norms.
We do not wish to have the fruits of our labor stolen from us. Each of these methods causes the misbehaved child to experience a negative emotion and associate it with the punished behavior. We do not wish to be ruled. Still other purpose theorists maintain that our lives would have meaning only insofar as they were intentionally fashioned by a creator, thereby obtaining meaning of the sort that an art-object has Gordon Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of actions.
What happens to art, philosophy, science, and love in such a world? For each of these functionings, the ideal is that each person should be sustained in the capability to engage in every one of these functionings at a satisfactory or good enough level.
There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even recognized. But every so often, a whale carcass falls to the bottom of the sea.
Two natural extensions of the equality of opportunity ideal deserve mention. In the links post before last, I wrote: Leaving these complications in the background, one can appreciate that having money gives one effective freedom to engage in a wide variety of activities and experiences.
Consider cannibalism, which has been practiced by groups in every part of the world. Most in the field have ultimately wanted to know whether and how the existence of one of us over time has meaning, a certain property that is desirable for its own sake.
With a moderate level of resources or capabilities I might live well, whereas with more resources or capabilities I might choose heroin or methamphetamine and live badly. Reason can however be used to convince people that their basic values are in need of revision, because reason can reveal when values are inconsistent and self-destructive.
A Test Case Philosophical discussions of what should be equalized if we care about equality of condition raise dust that has not yet settled in any sort of consensus. This is in a nutshell the capability approach criticism of primary goods forms of resourcism.
For two examples, some claim that God must exist in order for there to be a just world, where a world in which the bad do well and the good fare poorly would render our lives senseless Craig ; cf. Some people have mystical experiences and see God.
Relativism does not entail that we should tolerate murderous tyranny. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither exists, then you are a nihilist, someone who denies that life has meaning.
These statements are true if the person does hold the appropriate attitude or have the appropriate feelings. Another thought is that responsible individuals will consider themselves to have a personal obligation, which cannot be shifted to the government or any agency of society, to decide for themselves what is worthwhile in human life and what is worth seeking and to fashion and refashion as changing circumstances warrant a plan of life to achieve worthwhile ends.Moral Relativism Argument 1 – Different cultures/people have different moral codes.
And this leads to tolerance of other cultures/people. And this leads to tolerance of other cultures/people. Reply – But should one tolerate slavery, the abuse of women, etc.?
The words "moral" and "ethics" (and cognates) are often used interchangeably. are we merely describing how peoplethen, when they study morality, want to know what is the proper way of determining right and wrong.
There have been many different proposals.Ý Here is a brief summary.
Theories of Morality (1) Moral Subjectivism. Aug 16, · It’s a question that mankind has long struggled to answer. We’ve built philosophies and religions around it, gone to war over it, and debated it for centuries.
Theories on just what the meaning of life actually is range from the optimistic to the mind-blowingly. Start studying Philosophy Test 3. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. "the fact that different societies have different moral codes proves nothing" True.
The meaning of life may be different for each individual and/or each species. The truth of the meaning of life is likely in the eye of. The stanch socialist and righteous royalist are equally right; they just occupy different moral worldviews.
Relativism has been widely criticized. It is attacked as being sophomoric, pernicious, and even incoherent.
Moral philosophers, theologians, and social scientists try to identify objective values so as to forestall the relativist menace. While some of these philosophies seem like they’d have little impact on your life, through understanding different fundamental ideas and evaluating where you own ideals are met, you can discover a new compass to guide you through life.Download