My Moral Theory
... > Why > do we need to be moral? ... Like Kant said, no one would > want to live in a world where morality does not > exist, > therefore we need to be moral in order to survive. > Relativism consists of moral theories that are > dependent on individual perception and/or cultural > creation. There are four main relative moral > theories > which include Individual Subjectivism, Cultural > Relativism, Moral Realism, and Moral Skepticism. ... The flaw here is > that > there is obviously no standard as to what is moral, > which implies that there is no morality at all. > Under > this law, people like Ted Bundy would be moral > because > it is according to his perceptions. I disagree with > this theory because if someone thinks something is > moral, does not necessarily mean it is. It might be > moral to them, but that does not make the action > itself moral. ... This > theory leaves no rational basis for cultural > reformation, and implies that reformers, such as > Martin Luther King Jr. ... Just > because a culture believes something to be moral, it > does not give that action morality. Moral Realism > simply states that might makes right. ... This theory confuses > what > is effective with what one ought to do. I disagree > with this theory because it implies that people are > not equal, and wrong can turn into right just > because > someone in power says so. Moral Skepticism > questions > the method to knowing what is right and wrong. ... I > don’t agree with this because everyone must make > moral > decisions whether he/she wants to or not. > The Natural Law Theory, created by Thomas Acquinas, > defines morality as that which all things aim for. > This theory is objective, stating that morality > exists > outside the individual mind. ... To promote > these values is moral, and to violate them is > immoral. ... This theory always claims > that there is one final purpose that ALL aims for. > This moral theory is absolute, and leaves no room > for > individuality. This theory seems very logical, and > it > would be nice to think that there is already a final > purpose set for all humans. But I have to disagree > with this theory because it is too absolute. It is > too strict, and under this theory, you would not be > able to express yourself because you would be guided > by rules of what you are supposed to do. ... Kant > contradicted Acquinas’s theory by arguing that > morality can not be discovered by observation. ... > There > are three methods to determine what is moral. ... If that rule can be applied universally and > carried out with logic, and is not self-defeating, > then it is moral. ... If not, then it is not moral. > If > your actions does not pass all three tests, then it > is > not moral. ... If someone is unable to reason, that > makes > them less moral that those who can reason? ... Of > all the moral theories, I like Kant’s the best > because > it makes sense, and provides a clear method as to > determine what is moral. I agree with him that > observation only shows us the things that we do, > which > does not necessarily mean they are moral.