Reference no: EM133724833
Assignment:
Divine Command Theory suggests that morality is completely dependent upon God. Certain actions are "right" because God says those actions are right, while "wrong" actions are those that God has deemed wrong. This theory may initially seem appealing to those of us who profess adherence to a particular religion and tend to think of religion as a primary source for morality; but as we've seen in our course materials this week, there are some potential problems with this theory. What do you think is the hardest problem for Divine Command Theory to overcome, and why?
Moral Relativism states that morality is nothing more than the predominant opinions concerning right and wrong within a particular society, or culture. One advantage of Moral Relativism is that it promotes tolerance and understanding of other cultures. It can help us respect and appreciate the fact that human societies and cultures have different values and different expectations for their members. One disadvantage however, is that the position of Moral Relativism prevents us from condemning behaviors that are accepted within other societies and cultures. If a particular foreign culture decides that murder is acceptable, then as an outsider, I cannot say that people in that culture do wrong when they commit murder. After considering the main advantage and disadvantage, what are your thoughts about Moral Relativism? Does the disadvantage disqualify it as a legitimate moral perspective in your view, or does the advantage salvage the idea?
Ethical Subjectivism is a moral perspective that many people initially find attractive. It's the "to each his own" view of morality. Right and wrong are seen as nothing more than individual preferences. There are no objective moral facts. What are some potential problems with this moral perspective? Given that many people hold this kind of view, or some variation of it, how would you go about showing someone that it may lead to problems for her/him?
We've stumbled upon a classic philosophical debate here this week, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. On the one side, we have Thomas Hobbes, who believes that people must have a strong government in place to enforce the terms of the social contract; on the other, we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argues that people do not require a strong government, and that they will naturally cooperate to uphold a social contract because of the clear benefits of doing so. Who do you side with? Is government necessary to make sure that people will act ethically, or do people act ethically without being compelled to do so by a political authority?