PL2301 Lecture Notes - Moral Nihilism, Immorality, Cultural Relativism

62 views1 pages

nurtoa03

7 Jun 2022

School

St. Mary's University

Department

PL - Philosophy

Course

PL2301

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

The enterprise of moral philosophy is bankrupt, and all ethical views are equally plausible. This view is controversial and it has problems but ethics is not objective but it is worth studying. There are no objective truths to find, even if the mere facts that people disagree is not objective. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Ethical objectivism: the view that some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true. Objectivity: moral standards are objective if they apply to everyone, even if people don"t believe that they do, even if people are indifferent to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone"s desires. Moral nihilism: the view that there are no moral truths at all. Ethical relativism: the view that there are some moral truths but that they are relative to each person or society.

Related Questions

Brief and detail

If relativism is true, can you ever judge something as being morally wrong? Consider some really horrible actions, genocide, murder, slavery, torture or add your own. If you feel a relativist could say that these things are actually wrong, what gives them this ability? If they can't, why not?

Agree or disagree

Similarly to what I said in the first discussion on what morality means to us, I think everyone has their own set of moral principles and obligations. So I do think that relativism is true, to a point however. I used Adolf Hitler and the Nazi empire as an example in the first discussion so I will use that here. Hitler knew in his brain that what he was doing was good for his nation and arguably the world. Now, as a modern day society we can agree that was wrong. For him, it was good. In his own mind, he is right. But it is relative to the person. Generally speaking we all have similar notions of what is right and what is wrong. Most people would say that going out of your way to help someone else is a morally good principle. Selflessness in society is seen a good thing by the vast majority of people. When I say that relativism is good to a point, I mean that there is a general basis in society that deems actions as good or bad. And since most of us would all agree that hitlers actions were bad, then we say that he had bad moral principles, even though to him, they were good. It’s a little confusing even for me to put into words. Basically, if you actions are generally viewed in society as good, then you have good moral principles even if they vary from person to person. No one will have the exact same moral standards, but generally they all are very similar in society. So relativism is true until the point where the majority of society would deem your actions and wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Agree or disagree

If relativism is true, I don't think judging something as morally wrong is possible. Because the definition of ethical relativism is the moral standard only being correctly relative to each person/society, this means that the moral standard is created by you and/or the society you identify with and therefore eliminate the existence of an absolute moral principle. Since the moral standard is different for every individual, we cannot say that someone is morally wrong. If relativism is applied, that is. If a relativist were to say that they could judge someone as morally wrong, then that would contradict the main component of being a relativist. That every moral argument of yours is correct, therefore everyone else's is also correct. Quite problematic but that is my understanding on the matter

ell25

Your task in physics lab is to make a microscope from two lenses.One lens has a focal length of 12 cm, the other a focal length of2.5 cm. You plan to use the more powerful lens as the objective,and you want its image to be 16 cm from the lens, as in a standardbiological microscope.
How far should the objective lens be from the object to produce areal image 16 cm from the objective? answer in cm
What will be the magnification of your microscope?

Galileo devised a simple terrestrial telescope that producesanupright image. It consists of a converging objective lens andadiverging eyepiece at opposite ends of the telescope tube.Fordistant objects, the tube length is the objective focal lengthlessthe absolute value of the eyepiece focal length.

(a) Does the user of the telescope see a realorvirtual image?

Virtual Image RealImage

(b) Where is the final image? (For values of infinity,enter999 as your answer.)
q_e = 2

(c) If a telescope is to be constructed with a tube 9.8 cm long anda magnification of 2.20, what are the focal lengths of theobjectiveand eyepiece?
f_eyepiece = cm <======Incorrect and needHelp!!!
f_objective = cm <======Incorrect andNeedHelp!!!

I have answered all the parts but the lasttwo.Can anyone help?

Thanks and Lifesavers waiting for thefirstbidder!

PL2301 Lecture Notes - Moral Nihilism, Immorality, Cultural Relativism

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PHIL 2131 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Moral Realism, Cameron Diaz, Moral Skepticism

PHIL 217 Study Guide - The Good Life, Validity, Normative Ethics

PHIL 1550 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Meta-Ethics, Moral Realism, Golden Rule

Related Questions