The theories of Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivism are quite different. In Moral Relativism, what is right and what is wrong is not set in stone, each person and each culture can have it’s own definition of right and wrong. Moral Objectivism states that there is no variation in right and wrong and that right and wrong is set across all people, cultures, and time periods. David Hume’s theory fits in with Moral Relativism. Hume’s Sentimentalism is based off of the idea that feelings, passion, and human nature dictate what is right and wrong. With his theory a person’s feelings will help them make choices, once those choices are made reason comes in and justifies those choices. Ultimately what we decided is right and wrong comes from our
…show more content…
This moral principle state that there is a universal law that all individuals must follow. The Categorical Imperative also states that we must treat individuals as an end and not a means to an end. Kant felt that there were three propositions for morality. His first proposition stated that actions should be done from a sense of duty so that they would have moral worth. His second propositions stated that any action does not have moral worth from the reason of which it is trying to be achieved. In his final proposition he states that duties come from requirements that cause people to act in ways that respect laws. John Stuart Mill is very critical of Immanuel Kant’s theory. He believes that Kant’s idea that we should not look at the ends of an action is wrong. Mill feels that what is right and what is wrong should be looked at in terms of the results from the action. Mill also feels that people should seek to make sure that there is a general happiness in everyone’s lives not just their own. Utilitarian theories state that the happiness and well being of all individuals while deontological theories follow that the moral ethics of an action are determined by how it follows rules and …show more content…
Two bears were put down in front of their cubs because the zoo could not afford to house them or move them to another zoo while a new enclosure was being built. I feel that the bears’ destruction is a moral issue because it caused unnecessary harm to another sentient being, while bringing about a financial gain for the zoo. I feel that my thoughts on this moral situation reflects that of W.D Ross’s Deontological theory. I cannot imagine that a zoo that was able to raise the money to build a new exhibit, would not be able to raise the $500 needed to relocate the bears. The zoo raised the money with the intention of building the bears a new exhibit, not with the intention of building an exhibit and killing the bears. In order to make up for the wrongs that were committed the acting Director of Parks and Recreation was moved to another post. However, this act does not quite make up for the wrong, killing another being is a hard wrong to right as you cannot undo what has been done. Being in a director position if I were in this situation, I would pull money from my own funds to pay for the relocation of the animals. Ross explains that there is a duty to help others, help yourself, and to not cause any harm to others. This situation does not follow any of these duties as it is a direct cause of harm to another. Not only were the bears harmed, the community was hurt from the actions of the zoo, and the people who
This moral principle state that there is a universal law that all individuals must follow. The Categorical Imperative also states that we must treat individuals as an end and not a means to an end. Kant felt that there were three propositions for morality. His first proposition stated that actions should be done from a sense of duty so that they would have moral worth. His second propositions stated that any action does not have moral worth from the reason of which it is trying to be achieved. In his final proposition he states that duties come from requirements that cause people to act in ways that respect laws. John Stuart Mill is very critical of Immanuel Kant’s theory. He believes that Kant’s idea that we should not look at the ends of an action is wrong. Mill feels that what is right and what is wrong should be looked at in terms of the results from the action. Mill also feels that people should seek to make sure that there is a general happiness in everyone’s lives not just their own. Utilitarian theories state that the happiness and well being of all individuals while deontological theories follow that the moral ethics of an action are determined by how it follows rules and …show more content…
Two bears were put down in front of their cubs because the zoo could not afford to house them or move them to another zoo while a new enclosure was being built. I feel that the bears’ destruction is a moral issue because it caused unnecessary harm to another sentient being, while bringing about a financial gain for the zoo. I feel that my thoughts on this moral situation reflects that of W.D Ross’s Deontological theory. I cannot imagine that a zoo that was able to raise the money to build a new exhibit, would not be able to raise the $500 needed to relocate the bears. The zoo raised the money with the intention of building the bears a new exhibit, not with the intention of building an exhibit and killing the bears. In order to make up for the wrongs that were committed the acting Director of Parks and Recreation was moved to another post. However, this act does not quite make up for the wrong, killing another being is a hard wrong to right as you cannot undo what has been done. Being in a director position if I were in this situation, I would pull money from my own funds to pay for the relocation of the animals. Ross explains that there is a duty to help others, help yourself, and to not cause any harm to others. This situation does not follow any of these duties as it is a direct cause of harm to another. Not only were the bears harmed, the community was hurt from the actions of the zoo, and the people who