kknyah1 - Tumblr blog

[kknyah1]

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is a moral theory that holds that people should be judged morally according to their particular culture. In some cultures, her actions are morally wrong. when they defy the culture's prevailing opinion on a particular issue. However, behavior is acceptable as long as it adheres to the culture's preconceived notions of a given subject.

We should be accepting of the cultures and differences of other people, according to some arguments against cultural relativism. that individuals should embrace the idea of universal tolerance by accepting things that differ from what they are accustomed to. There is also a case to be made for allowing disagreement. The subject isn't seen from both sides if there isn't discussion and debate on it. Relativism is also opposed by the notion that if the theory is accepted, there is a general consensus and no need for debate.

Rejecting cultural relativism typically entails embracing ethical realism, the idea that morality is determined by "objective" criteria rather than by cultural attitudes. Due to this, one may accept cultural relativism, allowing flexibility in various decisions once you realize that some actions are motivated by cultural differences. Additionally, cultural relativism enables traditions to come to fruition rather than forcing culturally traditional practices to change constantly in order to please others.

[kknyah1]

Divine Command Theory

Since it makes no assertions about what God actually commands, Divine Command Theory is not a theory about which specific actions are right and wrong. Additionally, it is not a theory of how we discover ethical truths.

Additionally, we must be careful to separate Divine Command Theory from Natural Law Theory. According to the Natural Law Theory, moral truths are rooted in both human nature and the universe's natural order. Of course, theists who support the Natural Law Theory contend that God established the moral order by creating the very natural order; however, this view differs from the Divine Command Theory. The moral order of the universe was created by God, according to both theories, but one contends that God created the natural order first before creating the moral order through commands and prohibitions.

Although the Divine Command Theory is frequently cited in popular justifications for religion, religious philosophers disagree with it. The possibility that God could command truly awful things is a worrying result of the Divine Command Theory, in addition to arbitrariness. Consider the morally basest action you could take. Whatever you just considered, if the Divine Command Theory is accurate, then God could command that thing to be morally right.

This also creates uncertainty because those who follow might make a choice believing it to be morally right while God commands that it is immoral. This also conveys the notion of having autonomy or free will even when making decisions that have a religious component. Atheists won't be persuaded to accept the Divine Command Theory by the claim that God has the power to make things right or wrong at will because the argument relies on the existence of God. It could, however, be used in conjunction with other proofs of God's existence.

[kknyah1]

Moral Considerability

There is widespread agreement that adult humans deserve moral consideration,[1] which is to say, roughly, that when deciding whether to perform an action, we should take its effects on adult humans into account. This will discuss five theories of moral considerability.

The first is ratiocentrism. Rational adult humans should always be provided moral consideration, according to ratiocentrism. It implies the absurdity that neither infants nor those suffering from severe mental disabilities merit moral consideration. Ratiocentrists could dismiss this concern by arguing that potential rationality rather than actual rationality is what counts for moral decency. According to this perspective, moral consideration should be given to infants and those who have severe mental disabilities, not for the capacities they already possess but for the capacities they may one day possess.

Anthropocentrism is the second.This idea that because adult humans are biologically human, they should be given moral consideration. This perspective introduces speciesism, which is the practice of treating some species' moral importance as greater than that of other species. fostering the notion that anything or anyone who is not a human being biologically is not worthy of moral consideration.

Biocentrism is the belief that all living things are morally deserving of consideration. Although this point of view appears to be the most universal, it can have implications for small matters like someone wanting to trim the branches from their tree that are hanging into their yard. Plants may be morally deserving, but not to the same degree as humans.

Finally, ecocentrism holds that collectives or groups, particularly those that support the health of ecosystems, are what morally merit moral consideration rather than individual beings. According to ecocentrism, the majority of individual plants and animals are morally deserving because they support the health of ecosystems. However, not every plant or animal is morally deserving of consideration. This theory has a flaw in that it assumes that because humans routinely destroy the environment and ecosystems, they are morally less deserving of consideration than animals and plants. even making the ethically acceptable killing of some humans.

Practical ethical questions can be answered with the aid of theories of moral considerability, but those questions cannot be resolved solely by those theories. It is argued in these theories that everything that is tangible in some way deserves to be taken into account. People can even ask whether there should be a limit on what is given moral consideration and what isn't.

[kknyah1]

Animalism and Personal identity

Describe animalism. The idea that each of us is an animal, a biological member of the species Homo sapiens, is known as animalism. Animalists maintain that despite the fact that humans frequently display rationality and intelligence levels that other animals do not, we are still animals.

The concept of animalism has implications for our sense of identity over time, we remain who we are in the past, present, and future. If we are human animals, we cannot exist independently of those animals because our ability to maintain our identity over time depends on our ability to remain the same animal.

Animalism is distinct from psychological theories because psychological theories believe that "you" are made up of your mind and your brain. Animalism, in contrast, has a biological identity rather than a psychological one. According to this theory, our bodies and minds are interdependent, and without our bodies, we are no different from other animals. Although people have their own virtues, ways of life, aspirations, and goals, they are still limited by their physical limitations. Therefore, even if a brain transplant were possible, when the body fails, the person would no longer be the same to others and to themselves. One would have to learn how to live as a completely different physical being, rendering who they once were.

Although one's experiences throughout life also affect their personal identity, the body they lived in also has an impact on these experiences and identity. People's personal identities are formed by their ability to maintain living in one body and comprehending the world and their problems through that body. A dolphin or an orangutan will perceive identity differently than a human animal does. Of course, dolphins and orangutans are also intelligent and consistently reflective animals, so what distinguishes humans from other animals, aside from their own individual endeavors and the development of society?

[kknyah1]

Cartesian Dualism

The idea that something is made up of two fundamentally distinct parts is known as dualism. The dual existence of man is the focus of Cartesian dualism. According to Descartes, a man is made up of Matter, or the physical being that moves and speaks. The non-physical substance known as the soul, along with the Mind.

Descartes held the view that matter operates according to its own laws,  besides when the mind intervenes. Therefore, the human mind merely directs the internal processes of the body to fulfill its wishes. Because the pineal gland, according to Descartes, is the only part of the brain that isn't a duplicate, he thought that this gland was the site of interaction between the mind and body.

Descartes argued that the brain and the mind are distinct entities. Although it connects the mind and body, the brain is not the actual mind because it is a physical, mutable object. Man's body can be altered, but his mind is whole and unbreakable. You can lose a limb or have a transplant  but none of these things will in any way diminish your mind. Descartes also held the view that only man was a dualistic being. Animals, acting solely on instinct and in accordance with the laws of nature. It is an interesting question to ask one selves. What is the brain without a mind? 

Descartes could have questioned the reality of the physical world but since doubting is a mental process, he was unable to do so regarding the existence of his mind. Through the process of doubting, he came to understand that his mind was still whole and unchanging, and therefore in some way distinct from the physical world, regardless of what the changeable physical world actually looked like.

Descartes' dualism implies that all that is necessary is to concentrate on one's own mental development. Although the mind and body are distinct, the influence of the brain rather than the mind can help the body heal and regenerate. How the mind could not be involved in the influences on the body is a legitimate question.

[kknyah1]

Descartes "I think therefore I am”

Discourse on the Method is where the phrase "I think, therefore I am" first appears .The phrase "I am, I exist" is used instead of "I am" in Descartes' most well-known work, Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes acknowledges in the Meditations that he has held a number of untrue beliefs and sets out to address this issue in the hopes of ensuring that he only holds true beliefs and that scientific inquiry also produces only true conclusions.

His approach is to cast doubt on or reject any assertion that is false or has the potential to be false. The most extreme reason for doubt that Descartes then considers is the possibility that a bad demon could possess the ability to manipulate all of his thoughts and deceive him into believing anything. Descartes is unable to disprove the existence of this demon. He admits that it's possible that all of his beliefs about the world outside of his own mind are demon-induced illusions.

Descartes soon finds the Cogito after considering the evil demon. He understands that the demon can be failed to pass by thinking "I am, I exist." Descartes must exist in order to be deceived, even if all the beliefs and belief categories he examines are false or have a chance of being false. Even if one questions their own existence, they still must be there because something or someone must be asking the question. Since doubting is a form of thinking, and thinking necessitates existence in the first place, it is impossible to doubt and not exist. The "I think" concept of the Cogito suggests that one has a distinct and certain awareness of their own existence. Since a nonexistent person cannot be deceived, thought necessitates a thinker, and this is undeniable. Thus, Descartes found the knowledge he was looking for: some undeniable, unquestionable truth.

Descartes had discovered a belief that, when held to, is unquestionable and cannot be untrue. According to him, a belief cannot be known unless it is certain. If certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then if the Cogito is any indication of metaphysics, we have very little knowledge.

[kknyah1]

Basis of Philosophy and Consequentialism

The pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and truth is the broadest definition for philosophy. Greek for "love of wisdom," the term itself. Philosophical dilemmas include those pertaining to the nature of the cosmos and each of us, the boundaries of human knowledge, one's own values, and the purpose of existence.

Philosophical thought has been practiced throughout history, in all cultures, and in all academic disciplines. Philosophy sets one field of study apart from all others in the academic world, including the arts and other social sciences. Philosophers typically consider issues that are a little bit more broad-based. For instance, while philosophers ponder the nature of justice and whether these causes were truly just, historians study historical figures who fought for justice. There are many subfields of philosophy. In today's subsection, we'll talk about consequentialism.

According to the consequentialist viewpoint, the outcomes of an action are the only factors to be taken into account when making moral decisions.

Consequentialists typically argue that we should always choose the course of action that will produce the best overall outcomes for all of the people it will affect. Since consequentialism is a complex theory, there have been many discussions about its specifics. Even so, whereas a individual can "aspire" his actions to bring about a specific result, the result is typically out of ones control.

Some consequentialists acknowledge that the morality of the act may depend in part on the agent's intention. The question then becomes: who has the right to decide whether or not the acting agent adequately took the intention into consideration? an unbiased and objective third party? a collection of guidelines?

Attempting to claim that morality is solely based on the actual effect and that

"almost" only makes a difference, "actual" consequentialists dismiss the entire discussion of the "almost" consequentialists.

[kknyah1]

What is an Abortion?

There are different definitions, that people use to define abortion. Some will say, an abortion is the murder of an unborn baby or child. Others will say it is the intentional termination of a fetus to end a pregnancy. And others will say, that abortion is the intentional killing of a fetus to end a pregnancy.

When one states that abortion is murder, that is false by definition. As murder translates to wrongful killing, which leaves no room for debate on the situation, that could’ve arose for this abortion to transpire. Also, to call a non-full term pregnancy, an unborn baby or child is false as the fetus cannot support them selves out of the womb. With this definition, there is an assumption  that abortion is automatically wrong, because it kills babies, but it is critical to understand. The fetuses and babies are not the same thing.

The second definition also finds it flaws.  The usage of the word termination is vague therefore, it is not direct enough to be a clear definition as terminate can come in many different ways. To terminate some thing is simply just to end it, but it is not direct and clear as to what’s ending and how.  Verbiage is important as there’s a difference between murder and killing the uses of the word killing is intentional, and does not leave room for a question begging argument provided that there is an understanding to the definition murder insinuates that it was a wrongful killing.

Therefore, the understanding of abortion as an intentional killing of a fetus to end, a pregnancy is informative and neutral from bias. It is simply just a clear definition of what the procedure is, and what it entails without moral dilemma, implications being placed on the definition, a lot of definitions, our flawed, as they are created in repurpose with emotional, feeling, rather than just speaking on abortion as a medical procedure.

[kknyah1]

Determinism is the idea that physical laws that we know to create events has already been situated that no matter what happens in life it’s happening directly the way it is supposed to. This describes physical determinism, this determinism is that every event will happen because of past events it is required to allow whatever occurrs during current and future events.On the contrary there indeterminism is which is some, but not all things are not controlled by previous events. There is an idea of chance or luck within this style of determinism.

Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with determinism and argue that we have free will.

One belief is a free choice is one where the person is allowed to make the discernment to choose between multiple options, and have the ability to choose one or the other and that free choice is where a person is not swayed by anything besides their choice. Libertarians ideas are incompatible with determinism. Due to, if determinism is true, events that transpired prior to us being able to make our own decisions have an influence on our choices now. Therefore, there is no free will. Also, if determinism is true, the past requires our choices, making it the foundation of all choices.

Libertarian say that free choice is required in determinism, but indeterminism is not practical for free choice. Hard determinist agree with libertarians that they are incompatible with determinism, but that there is no free will.

Although people should be held morally responsible for their actions within the argument of doing something with Freewill, or with it not is also dependent on what was morally inexcusable. Peoples actions are continuously derived from things that they experience in the past even things that they are experiencing currently and how it affects their mental state some should not be barred for acting in accordance of how they think they’ll benefit within that time. However, everyone’s actions rather it be good or bad is influenced by things that they have previously not been able to control.

[kknyah1]

Major Positions on Free Will

Determinism is the idea that physical laws that we know to create events has already been situated that no matter what happens in life it’s happening directly the way it is supposed to. This describes physical determinism, this determinism is that every event will happen because of past events it is required to allow whatever occurrs during current and future events.On the contrary there indeterminism is which is some, but not all things are not controlled by previous events. There is an idea of chance or luck within this style of determinism.

Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with determinism and argue that we have free will.

One belief is a free choice is one where the person is allowed to make the discernment to choose between multiple options, and have the ability to choose one or the other and that free choice is where a person is not swayed by anything besides their choice. Libertarians ideas are incompatible with determinism. Due to, if determinism is true, events that transpired prior to us being able to make our own decisions have an influence on our choices now. Therefore, there is no free will. Also, if determinism is true, the past requires our choices, making it the foundation of all choices.

Libertarian say that free choice is required in determinism, but indeterminism is not practical for free choice. Hard determinist agree with libertarians that they are incompatible with determinism, but that there is no free will.

Although people should be held morally responsible for their actions within the argument of doing something with Freewill, or with it not is also dependent on what was morally inexcusable. Peoples actions are continuously derived from things that they experience in the past even things that they are experiencing currently and how it affects their mental state some should not be barred for acting in accordance of how they think they’ll benefit within that time. However, everyone’s actions rather it be good or bad is influenced by things that they have previously not been able to control.

[kknyah1]

Reparations

The majority of arguments in favor of reparations are based on the idea of reparative justice, which holds that those who have suffered wrongdoing or injustice have a moral right to some sort of repair. This reparation could take the form of an admission of guilt, the return of the offended property, or financial compensation. This will speak predominantly on financial compensation for African-American slavery.

The argument that modern white people are not morally accountable for the suffering of black people under slavery is frequently used in response to calls for reparations for the wrongs of slavery. It is true that no one alive today is responsible for historical injustices committed before they were even born, however they still benefit from it. As we as people still following and contribute to laws and regulations created from historical injustices such as slavery.

Observe now that labor theft is one of the many things that slavery is, as slaves' labor is taken from them forcibly and unjustly. The slave owners use that labor to increase their wealth, which they then pass on to their offspring and subsequent generations. The impoverishment brought on by slavery, particularly the lack of wealth accumulation, affects slaves' children. They are the victims of theft, which is a form of economic exploitation.

Those reparations should be calculated roughly based on the value of the stolen labor monetarily in comparison to the income without the stolen labor. Rectifying theft and the equitable distribution of resources. If you take someone else's labor forcibly and take advantage of them, that is theft.There are financial concerns about determining who is owed what in addition to political concerns about the possibility of escalating racial and ethnic tensions. In general, those who gain from oppression must give up those benefits and compensate the victims.