Week 3 - Objectivism (_Are there absolute moral rules
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Cypress College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
102
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by kerencastellon14
Week 3 - Objectivism ("Are there absolute moral rules?")
1. Explain the situation of the person who wants to borrow money but knows he cannot pay back
based on Immanuel Kant's argument (9.2, Page 122)
In this case, Immanuel Kant’s arguments hinge on the concept of universalizing a maxim or rule
of action. Kant would argue that it is ethically wrong for someone who wants to borrow money
but knows they cannot pay it back to make a false promise in order to receive the loan. Moan
action, through Kants, is founded on principles that may be applied universally and without
contradiction. In this circumstance, the person’s maxim or rule of behavior would be “whenever
you need a loan, promises to repay it, even…..” to acquire the loan, the individual wants to
deceive the lender. However, Kant observes that if this maxim were to be universalized and made
a general norm, it would result in a self-defeating scenario. Kant contends that if everyone made
false promises in order to gain debts that they could not return, faith in promises would
deteriorate, rendering them useless. The conflict between individual goals and universal effects
renders that conduct ethically unjustifiable. Kant promotes moral consistency and sees people as
ends in themselves rather than means to a goal. False promises weaken honesty and respect for
others, violating Kant’s ideals. As a result, the individual should not make a dishonest pledge to
borrow money. In ethical decision-making, Kant’s reasoning emphasizes the significance of
universalizability, moral consistency, and respect for others.
2. What did the Dutch fisherman do when faced with soldiers looking for prisoners? (9.4, Page
126-127)
When the soldiers came looking for prisoners, the Dutch fishermen smuggled Jewish refugees
and would lie to the Nazi Captain who was on board. And for that reason they were allowed to
pass because if not they would be taken and killed.
3. Do you agree with Immanuel Kant that humans occupy a special place in the world? (10.1,
Page 130)
Throughout history, Immanuel Kant and many others maintained the conviction that people have
a unique role in the world. It’s hard to say if I agree or not, I would considered being in the
middle.According to Kant, humans are the only rational beings capable of regulating their
behavior and determining their objectives. This viewpoint, persons have a distinctive moral
standing and should be considered as ends in themselves rather than just as means to a goal. It
indicates that humans owe it to one another to respect value. However, it is vital to emphasize
that many philosophical and ethical opinions exist on this subject. Some may claim that other
creatures have moral value and should be treated with dignity and respect. whether one agrees or
disagrees with Kant's position is determined by one's own philosophical, ethical, and cultural
viewpoints. Individuals and philosophical traditions may hold differing views on the position and
value of humans in comparison to other beings in the world.
4. Between objectivism and relativism, which one are you more inclined to accept as a better
moral theory? Or do you prefer a combination of the two and under what circumstances?
I would say relativism has a better moral theory because there are no correct answer which allows having
our own opinion in are society. We all live in a different cultural that has are own belief. Relativism has
more freedom then Objectivism. Objectivism contends that objective moral truths exist that are
independent of individual judgments or cultural standards. It implies that universal laws govern what is
right and evil. Moral judgments, on the other hand, are subjective and fluctuate based on individual
viewpoints or cultural circumstances, according to relativism.t believes that there are no universally true
moral standards and that what is good or wrong is relative to an individual's or society's ideas and
values.Certain may argue for a compromise that accepts the presence of certain objective moral truths
while also acknowledging the role of culture and individual variances in moral judgments. It's a topic of
continuing philosophical dispute, and various researchers and individuals may have opposing viewpoints.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help