Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Subjectivism in ethics essay
A reflection on loyalty
A reflection on loyalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Subjectivism in ethics essay
In, What Do We Know One Another?: Dilemmas of Loyalty, by Michael J Sandel, Sandel attempts to answer an undying question regarding the obligations of morality that people are suppose to have, along with the rest of society. Sandel tries to figure out if individuals in society should do more than they already do when it comes to being generous to others. The chapter first began with examples of countries that have paid reparations for their wrongdoings in previous history. One example was Germany apologizing for the attitudes and misrepresentation of German’s when the Holocaust had occured. Although it’s a positive thing to apologize for their wrongdoings, Sandel believes that one is responsible for their OWN actions and are not responsible …show more content…
Moral subjectivism describes that it is an individual's choice to choose what their thoughts on a specific subject is. They do not have to depend on the thoughts of others choices. These types of moral obligations that one may have are voluntary and natural duties. Voluntary obligations come from when one wants to do something that would end up benefiting another, but they’d have to do so under a contract or promise and they would have to keep their promise/contract under legal obligation. Natural duties, according to John Rawls, are obligations that individuals choose in order for them to decide whether or not they’d want to help another individual. In other words, natural duties would be the first, and original, position that they first would’ve chosen to help shape other individuals in society. Sandel comes with the idea that it is unjust for the world to only choose these obligations because it absolutely limits an individual's right to choose whether or not they want to act morally. So, the article speaks of him attempting to create his own type obligation which concludes to acting voluntary, but not having to ask for consent. We would consider this as obligations of
Simon Wiesenthal’s book The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness spoke to me about the question of forgiveness and repentance. Simon Wiesenthal was a Holocaust prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II. He experienced many brutal and uneasy experiences that no human being should experience in their lifetime and bear to live with it. Death, suffering, and despair were common to Simon Wiesenthal that he questioned his own religious faith because he asks why would his God allow the Holocaust happen to his people to be slaughter and not do anything to save them. During Simon Wiesenthal time as a Jewish Holocaust, Simon was invited to a military hospital where a dying Nazi SS officer wanted to have a conversation. The Nazi SS officer told Simon his story of his life and confesses to Simon of his horrific war crimes. Ultimately, the SS officer wanted forgiveness for what he done to Simon’s Jewish people. Simon Wiesenthal could not respond to his request, because he did not know what to do with a war criminal that participate in mass genocide to Simon’s people. Simon Wiesenthal lives throughout his life on asking the same crucial question, “What would I have done?” (Wiesenthal 98). If the readers would be on the exact situation as Simon was
In Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower, he recounts his incidence of meeting a dying Nazi soldier who tells Simon that he was responsible for the death of his family. Upon telling Simon the details, Karl asks for his forgiveness for what he helped accomplish. Simon leaves Karl without giving him an answer. This paper will argue that, even though Karl admits to killing Simon’s family in the house, Simon is morally forbidden to forgive Karl because Karl does not seem to show genuine remorse for his committed crime and it is not up to Simon to be able to forgive Karl for his sins. This stand will be supported by the meaning of forgiveness, evidence from the memoir, quotes from the published responses to Simon’s moral question, and arguments from Thomas Brudholm, Charles Griswold, and Trudy Govier. The possibly raised objection, for this particular modified situation, of forgiveness being necessary to move on from Desmond Tutu will be countered with the logic of needing to eventually find an end somewhere.
In addition, he takes enormous credibility for his behavior in the paragraph starting “‘I knew my actions were wrong...’” Woods shows his honesty to the audience and boosts his chances of forgiveness as he shows awareness of his mistakes in what he had done. He also emphasizes his mistakes when he apologizes to parents who pointed to him as a role model for their kids. This shows his noble side and his sensitivity for families and others, sustaining his hopes for forgiveness. Woods also claims responsibility for his behavior by admitting his need for help, which makes others realize how he is learning how to change, in order to make his apology more sincere. Not only does he mention his need for help, but also that he is thankful for the help of his peers. Once again this shows his noble side and awareness of the helpfulness of others, which will continue to make people more likely to forgive him. Lastly, at the end of the speech he asks
...st in his desperate plea for forgiveness. Therefore, the narrator should allow Karl his temporary forgiveness until God and the ones sinned upon can make their personal decision of whether his sins are indeed justifiable. Forgiveness is crucial for a clear conscience and peace of mind for the both of them. However, all of this is arguable by the fact today’s experiences are incomparable to those of Hitler’s times. One cannot begin to place one in each other’s shoes and know exactly how to respond to the events happening. One can only guess how they would respond but until they are in that moment, all plausible reasoning can change. Nevertheless, forgiveness continues to be an aspect of everyday life in every century.
The prima facie duties that William David Ross has listed include duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence. Duties of fidelity and reparation rest on previous acts that one has performed, and acting on these duties are acts such as promise-keeping (duties of fidelity) and making amends for previous wrongful acts (duties of reparation), while duties of gratitude rest on previous acts that others have performed. There is a duty associated with the distribution of pleasure or good regardless of its recipient, and this is termed as duties of justice. An additional duty rests on the mere fact that there are other beings in this world to whom we can be of assistance to: duties of beneficence. Duties of self-improvement claim that there are intrinsic moral reasons for one to improve oneself and finally, duties of non-maleficence states that there are intrinsic moral reasons to not harm others. Duties are placed on the list only when they have been judged to be basic moral reaso...
The position to choose between forgiving one’s evil oppressor and letting him die in unrest is unlike any other. The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal explores the possibilities and limitations of forgiveness through the story of one Jew in Nazi Germany. In the book, Wiesenthal details his life in the concentration camp, and the particular circumstance in which a dying Nazi asks him for forgiveness for all the heinous acts committed against Jews while under the Nazi regime. Wiesenthal responds to this request by leaving the room without giving forgiveness. The story closes with Wiesenthal posing the question, “What would you have done?” Had I been put in the position that Wiesenthal was in, I would ultimately choose to forgive the Nazi on the basis
For the purpose of this essay, this writer will define reciprocity as the expectation or ‘norm’ that people will respond to another party in the same manner in which the other party has treated them. So, for practical purposes, this means rewarding a good deed with another good deed, and punishing a bad deed with another bad deed. Of course, in order for a system like this to produce a favorable outcome, both groups must start out with good deeds, otherwise the system will only lead to relatively permanent hostilities.
Botwinick writes in A History of the Holocaust, “The principle that resistance to evil was a moral duty did not exist for the vast majority of Germans. Not until the end of the war did men like Martin Niemoeller and Elie Wiesel arouse the world’s conscience to the realization that the bystander cannot escape guilt or shame” (pg. 45). In The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick writes of a world where Niemoeller and Wiesel’s voices never would have surfaced and in which Germany not only never would have repented for the Holocaust, but would have prided itself upon it. Dick writes of a world where this detached and guiltless attitude prevails globally, a world where America clung on to its isolationist policies, where the Axis powers obtained world domination and effectively wiped Jews from the surface, forcing all resistance and culture to the underground and allowing for those in the 1960’s Nazi world to live without questioning the hate they were born into.
Duty is defined as a responsibility, a moral or legal obligation. As Americans, we are obligated to
John Stuart Mill’s moral belief centers around utilitarianism; utilitarianism basically states that actions are morally right if the produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Immanuel Kant’s moral belief centers around deontology or the obligation
Reparations? Just the term stirs up controversy, along with endless amounts of questions that are still to be answered. Should reparations be awarded? Is it feasible? Who should receive it? In what forms should it be given? These are only a few of the most important questions that need to be answered. To answer these questions, I will draw on the research conducted for my country study and the panel debates that were conducted over the past weeks. To fully understand my reasoning you must be informed of the approaches discussed on both sides of these debates.
...voluntary is not a moral duty, but it is an owed duty. On the other hand, the obligation to the involuntary is a definite moral duty; it must be done (119). An individual can make a difference with just a smile, a kind word, or even a hot meal. The homeless are human after all, and they do have feelings.
It may seem evident in hindsight that the Frenchmen who turned a blind eye to the injustices of colonialism were indeed “accomplices” to the crimes of the Empire (lviii). However, similar situations have occurred throughout history and are occurring today and Americans, even the most moral people, do not fulfill this duty. A prime example is the inhumane labor conditions abroad that furnish Americans with their consumer goods. Workers abroad are dehumanized in horrible conditions for little pay while companies reap enormous benefits and consumers are satisfied with the products they desire. I personally deplore the global labor practices we all enable, yet I have never stopped to question my role in perpetuating the injustice.
Social incentives tend to determine how individuals respond to societal pressure. It is the needs of an individual to obtain acceptance among peers, gain reputation or conform to norms of the society that causes the individual to react in a particular manner. Meanwhile, moral incentives are much more subjective and individualized. Moral incentives use the rational and emotional sides of individuals to encourage or discourage them from making certain choices. It reflects the principles of being human.
Apology opens the door to forgiveness by allowing us to have empathy for the wrongdoer.