Week 6: Ethics in Human Relationships
Week - Discussion
Topics
Topic
Applying Rand's Objectivism (graded)
Working Conflict Resolution Methods (graded)
Q&A Forum (not graded)
Applying Rand's Objectivism (graded)
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy has been touted by her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested
selfishness.
Her four epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.
In the early 1960's, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in an Objectivist's
free society.
The spokesman answered, "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."
If one reads Rand's works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this would be the answer
Ayn would have given to that student as well.
What do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism, the opposite of ethics?
And what clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?
Respond
,This section lists options that can be used to view responses.
Collapse All Print View Show Options
Responses
Responses are listed below in the following order: response, author and the date and time the
response is posted.
Sort by
Sort by Author Sort by Date/Time*
Response
(an instructor response)
Conflicts Professor Walker 4/2/2016 8:01:49 AM
How does moral relativism conflict with moral relativism?
Respond
RE:
Diana Szafaryn 4/4/2016 1:37:10 PM
Conflicts
Moral relativism believes that ethical truths are relative to groups smaller than
humanity as a whole. There is a conflict with moral relativism with the moral
reformer's dilemma. A moral relativist recognizes no standard of moral goodness
independent of what is accepted in a society. Some believe there are moral reformers
that have changed their societies for the better, for example Martin Luther King Jr.
with the civil rights movement in America. A moral relativist can recognize that the
individual changed the moral views for their society, but what a moral relativist
cannot do is say that they have changed their society for the better. The moral
relativist views that institutionalized racism was relatively morally right in pre-civil
rights America and relatively morally wrong in post-civil rights America. The
standard of what is good is determined by the prevalent views in a society, but
societies and their views change. There is no standard to judge goodness to go across
the 2 different times in society before and after civil rights with which to say that the
change in society that was the civil rights movement was a change for the better.
How does the moral relativist describe the reason for the change? Is the explanation
that the previously held view was mistaken and they discovered something new
about what is morally right? Would that not be akin to admitted that the moral views
changed for the better?
Reference
Moral Relativism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpayne/Moral Relativism.htm
Respond
, RE:
Ebelechukwu Odimegwu 4/4/2016 8:34:17 PM
Conflicts
Hello professor and classmates,
Moral relativism according to Moore & Parker is defined as the idea that what is
right and wrong depends on and is determined by one's group and culture. Moral
relativism suffers from three potential difficulties, firstly, knowing exactly what
counts as a group, society, or culture, and what are the criteria for membership in
one. The second difficulty is that the conflicting view about moral principles are to
be found within all but the very smallest groups. The third difficulty says that for
instance, to understand the problem, if someone belongs to a society that believes it
is permissible to kill Americans, then you, as a moral relativist, must concede it is
permissible for that person to kill American. But if Americans in general agree on
anything, it is that nobody should kill another person simply because of his or her
national status. Therefore, if you are an American, you must also say it is not
permissible for the person to kill Americans. Subscribing to moral relativism has
placed you in a self-contradictory position.
Moore, Brooke N., Parker, R. (01/2014). Critical Thinking, 11th Edition.
[VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from
https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259611140/
Ruggiero, Vincent. (01/2011). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 8th Edition.
[VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from
https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/0077794575/
Respond
RE:
Louisa Fri 4/5/2016 9:01:09 AM
Conflicts
Moral Relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what
someone thinks. To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and
wrong is usually added. There are two aspects to it, the subjective view which states
that what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally
right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may
alter from person to person. And the second part is the conventional which believes
that what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with
thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned
with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society. I personally find this to be
very true because like we discussed last week, people are learn and are fashioned by
, the society in which they grow in and the values of their society becomes what they
believe in and
Reference: Ruggiero, Vincent. (01/2011). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 8th
Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved
from https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/0077794575/
Moral Relativism and Objectivism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2016, from
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html
Respond
RE:
Laura Tucek 4/5/2016 5:58:44 PM
Conflicts
The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is
associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral
disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral
judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group
of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position
about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally
disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement.
DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical
disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empirical as well as philosophical
objections have been raised against it. Hence, it is one focal point of debate.
The metaethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral
judgments, and it has been given somewhat different definitions. Metaethical
relativists generally suppose that many fundamental moral disagreements cannot be
rationally resolved, and on this basis they argue that moral judgments lack the moral
authority or normative force that moral objectivists usually contend these judgments
may have. Hence, metaethical relativism is in part a negative thesis that challenges
the claims of moral objectivists. However, it often involves a positive thesis as well,
namely that moral judgments nonetheless have moral authority or normative force,
not absolutely or universally (as objectivists contend), but relative to some group of
persons such as a society or culture. This point is typically made with respect to truth
or justification (or both), and the following definition will be a useful reference
point:
Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or
their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions,
Week - Discussion
Topics
Topic
Applying Rand's Objectivism (graded)
Working Conflict Resolution Methods (graded)
Q&A Forum (not graded)
Applying Rand's Objectivism (graded)
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy has been touted by her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested
selfishness.
Her four epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.
In the early 1960's, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in an Objectivist's
free society.
The spokesman answered, "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."
If one reads Rand's works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this would be the answer
Ayn would have given to that student as well.
What do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism, the opposite of ethics?
And what clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?
Respond
,This section lists options that can be used to view responses.
Collapse All Print View Show Options
Responses
Responses are listed below in the following order: response, author and the date and time the
response is posted.
Sort by
Sort by Author Sort by Date/Time*
Response
(an instructor response)
Conflicts Professor Walker 4/2/2016 8:01:49 AM
How does moral relativism conflict with moral relativism?
Respond
RE:
Diana Szafaryn 4/4/2016 1:37:10 PM
Conflicts
Moral relativism believes that ethical truths are relative to groups smaller than
humanity as a whole. There is a conflict with moral relativism with the moral
reformer's dilemma. A moral relativist recognizes no standard of moral goodness
independent of what is accepted in a society. Some believe there are moral reformers
that have changed their societies for the better, for example Martin Luther King Jr.
with the civil rights movement in America. A moral relativist can recognize that the
individual changed the moral views for their society, but what a moral relativist
cannot do is say that they have changed their society for the better. The moral
relativist views that institutionalized racism was relatively morally right in pre-civil
rights America and relatively morally wrong in post-civil rights America. The
standard of what is good is determined by the prevalent views in a society, but
societies and their views change. There is no standard to judge goodness to go across
the 2 different times in society before and after civil rights with which to say that the
change in society that was the civil rights movement was a change for the better.
How does the moral relativist describe the reason for the change? Is the explanation
that the previously held view was mistaken and they discovered something new
about what is morally right? Would that not be akin to admitted that the moral views
changed for the better?
Reference
Moral Relativism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 04, 2016, from
http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu/wpayne/Moral Relativism.htm
Respond
, RE:
Ebelechukwu Odimegwu 4/4/2016 8:34:17 PM
Conflicts
Hello professor and classmates,
Moral relativism according to Moore & Parker is defined as the idea that what is
right and wrong depends on and is determined by one's group and culture. Moral
relativism suffers from three potential difficulties, firstly, knowing exactly what
counts as a group, society, or culture, and what are the criteria for membership in
one. The second difficulty is that the conflicting view about moral principles are to
be found within all but the very smallest groups. The third difficulty says that for
instance, to understand the problem, if someone belongs to a society that believes it
is permissible to kill Americans, then you, as a moral relativist, must concede it is
permissible for that person to kill American. But if Americans in general agree on
anything, it is that nobody should kill another person simply because of his or her
national status. Therefore, if you are an American, you must also say it is not
permissible for the person to kill Americans. Subscribing to moral relativism has
placed you in a self-contradictory position.
Moore, Brooke N., Parker, R. (01/2014). Critical Thinking, 11th Edition.
[VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from
https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/1259611140/
Ruggiero, Vincent. (01/2011). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 8th Edition.
[VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from
https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/0077794575/
Respond
RE:
Louisa Fri 4/5/2016 9:01:09 AM
Conflicts
Moral Relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what
someone thinks. To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and
wrong is usually added. There are two aspects to it, the subjective view which states
that what is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally
right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may
alter from person to person. And the second part is the conventional which believes
that what is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with
thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned
with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society. I personally find this to be
very true because like we discussed last week, people are learn and are fashioned by
, the society in which they grow in and the values of their society becomes what they
believe in and
Reference: Ruggiero, Vincent. (01/2011). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 8th
Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved
from https://devry.vitalsource.com/#/books/0077794575/
Moral Relativism and Objectivism. (n.d.). Retrieved April 5, 2016, from
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html
Respond
RE:
Laura Tucek 4/5/2016 5:58:44 PM
Conflicts
The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is
associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral
disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral
judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group
of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position
about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally
disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement.
DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical
disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empirical as well as philosophical
objections have been raised against it. Hence, it is one focal point of debate.
The metaethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral
judgments, and it has been given somewhat different definitions. Metaethical
relativists generally suppose that many fundamental moral disagreements cannot be
rationally resolved, and on this basis they argue that moral judgments lack the moral
authority or normative force that moral objectivists usually contend these judgments
may have. Hence, metaethical relativism is in part a negative thesis that challenges
the claims of moral objectivists. However, it often involves a positive thesis as well,
namely that moral judgments nonetheless have moral authority or normative force,
not absolutely or universally (as objectivists contend), but relative to some group of
persons such as a society or culture. This point is typically made with respect to truth
or justification (or both), and the following definition will be a useful reference
point:
Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or
their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions,
