Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 534 views

    The Moral Agents and Contexts BARS

    Uploaded by

    Lawrencium Baring
    The document discusses the concept of a moral agent and how contexts like physical, interpersonal, societal, and historical events shape moral decision-making. It also examines the relationship between culture and ethics. Specifically, it defines culture and cultural relativism, and summarizes James Rachels' arguments against an extreme form of cultural relativism, including that there are some objective moral truths and that accepting certain cultural practices could lead to absurd conclusions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Moral Agents and Contexts BARS

    Uploaded by

    Lawrencium Baring
    534 views16 pages
    The document discusses the concept of a moral agent and how contexts like physical, interpersonal, societal, and historical events shape moral decision-making. It also examines the relationship between culture and ethics. Specifically, it defines culture and cultural relativism, and summarizes James Rachels' arguments against an extreme form of cultural relativism, including that there are some objective moral truths and that accepting certain cultural practices could lead to absurd conclusions.

    Original Title

    The Moral Agents And Contexts BARS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the concept of a moral agent and how contexts like physical, interpersonal, societal, and historical events shape moral decision-making. It also examines the relationship between culture and ethics. Specifically, it defines culture and cultural relativism, and summarizes James Rachels' arguments against an extreme form of cultural relativism, including that there are some objective moral truths and that accepting certain cultural practices could lead to absurd conclusions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    534 views16 pages

    The Moral Agents and Contexts BARS

    Uploaded by

    Lawrencium Baring
    The document discusses the concept of a moral agent and how contexts like physical, interpersonal, societal, and historical events shape moral decision-making. It also examines the relationship between culture and ethics. Specifically, it defines culture and cultural relativism, and summarizes James Rachels' arguments against an extreme form of cultural relativism, including that there are some objective moral truths and that accepting certain cultural practices could lead to absurd conclusions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 16

    The Moral Agents And

    Contexts
    LAWRENCE JUNEL J. BARING
    WHAT IS A MORAL AGENT?
    • A PERSON WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO DISCERN WHAT IS
    RIGHT FROM WRONG
    • HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS
    • CHILDREN AND ADULTS WITH MENTAL DISABILITY HAVE
    LITTLE TO NO MORAL AGENCY(MOST LIKELY TO CONSULT
    OTHERS WITH THEIR DECISIONS)
    MORAL AGENT
    • IS A CROSSPOINT OR “POINT OF INTERACTION”
    • ADDRESSED AS “WHO ONE” BY RAMON CASTILLO
    REYES
    • FOUR CROSSPOINTS ARE: PHYSICAL, INTERPERSONAL,
    SOCIETAL AND HISTORICAL EVENTS
    1.PHYSICAL EVENTS
    • DICTATES THAT THE MORAL AGENT OR THE “WHO ONE” IS A
    PRODUCT OF NATURE, WHICH IS TRUE SINCE WE DO NOT DESIGN
    OURSELVES. WE CAME TO THIS WORLD WITH CERTAIN QUALITY THAT
    DIFFERS US FROM OTHERS.

    • WE HAVE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBILITIES

    • EX. WE CANNOT CHOOSE OUR PARENTS


    2.INTERPERSONAL EVENTS
    • INTERPERSONAL IS THE CONNECTION/RELATION OF SOMEONE TO
    THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM/HER.

    • WHY IS THIS A CROSSPOINT?

    • WE CAN’T DENY THE FACT THAT WE SPEND MOST OF OUR TIME


    WITH THESE PEOPLE, IT COULD BE OUR FRIENDS,PARENTS OR
    TEACHERS. BECAUSE OF THIS, THEY CONSTANTLY SHAPE OUR BELIEFS,
    ATTITUDES AND THE WAY WE MAKE DECISIONS.
    3.SOCIETAL EVENTS
    • THE “WHO ONE” IS A PRODUCT OF SOCIETY

    • SOCIETY PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE ON HOW ITS PEOPLE ACT. WE HAVE


    THIS SO-CALLED “SOCIETAL STANDARS” AND “NORMS” WHICH
    CAUSES THE AGENT TO CONFORM

    • EX. PAGMAMANO AS A SIGN OF RESPECT, DALAGANG


    PILIPINA=PURE,RESERVED
    4.HISTORICAL EVENTS
    • “KUNG WALANG KASAYSAYAN WALA TAYONG SAYSAY”-LOURD DE
    VEYRA

    • HISTORY IS PART OF OUR BEING, THAT THE PEOPLE OF TODAY IS THE


    PRODUCT OF THE PAST

    • EX. SPANISH COLONIZATION(CHRISTIANITY,FOOD,LANGUAGE…)


    CONCLUSION
    • ALL OF THESE FOUR CROSSPOINTS IS JUST ONE SIDE OF THE “WHO
    ONE”, SINCE EVERYONE HAS FREEDOM(FINITE). THUS A HUMAN
    INDIVIDUAL ALWAYS EXISTS IN TENSION BETWEEN EXTERNAL
    FACTORS AND BY BEING A FREE AGENT.
    CULTURE AND ETHICS
    LAWRENCE JUNEL J. BARING
    CULTURE
    • IT IS THE WAY OF LIFE OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE
    • IS SOMETHING THAT IS PASSED GENERATION AFTER
    GENERATION RANGING FROM LAWS, BELIEFS,
    TRADITIONS, AND SOCIETAL STANDARDS
    • CULTURE DICTATES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG FOR
    AN INDIVIDUAL.
    • PEOPLE USES THE STANDARDS OF THEIR SOCIETY IN
    MAKING MORAL DECISIONS.
    CULTURAL RELATIVISM
    • THERE ARE DIFFERENT CULTURES ACROSS THE GLOBE,
    THUS MORAL STANDARDS DIFFER FROM PLACES TO
    PLACES.
    • CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS A POSITION STATING THAT
    THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN THE REALM OF
    MORALITY.
    • NO ONE CORRECT MORAL CODE THAT EVERYONE
    MUST FOLLOW.
    JAMES RACHELS ON
    CULTURAL RELATIVISM
    • AN AMERICAN PHILOSPHER WHO QUESTIONED THE
    VALIDITY OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM.
    • HE USED TWO APPROACHES
    1. COUNTERARGUMENT ON “NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH
    IN MORALITY”
    2. REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
    COUNTERARGUMENT ON “NO
    OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN MORALITY”

    • EMPHASIZED THAT THERE ARE FACTS THAT EVERYONE


    CAN AGREE ON.
    • NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH
    IS FLAT WHILE THE OTHER ONE BELIEVED THAT THE
    EARTH IS ROUND, DENIES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH
    IS INDEED SPHERICAL IN SHAPE.
    REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
    • MEANS TO ACCEPT AN ARGUMENT AS CORRECT THEN
    ASSESS THE ABSURDITY OF ITS RESULTS.
    • IF CULTURAL RELATIVISM WAS CORRECT:
    1. WE CAN NO LONGER CRITICIZE OTHER CULTURE’S
    BELIEFS/PRACTICES
    EX. EXTREMISTS AROUND THE WORLD SUCH AS ISIS WOULD BE
    DEEMED CORRECT SINCE FOR THEM IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
    REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
    • IF CULTURAL RELATIVISM WAS CORRECT:
    2. WE CAN NO LONGER CRICIZE OUR OWN CULTURE
    EX.EVEN IF THERE ARE PRACTICES THAT COULD COMPROMISE HEALTH
    AND SAFETY, WE SHALL NOT QUESTION IT.
    3. WE CANNOT ACCEPT MORAL PROGRESS
    EX. THINGS SUCH AS WOMEN EMPOWERMENT, LGBTQI+ SHOULD NOT
    BE POSSIBLE IF CULTURAL RELATIVISM WAS CORRECT
    CONCLUSION
    • IN THE END JAMES RACHEL CONCLUDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE
    RESPECT FOR EACH CULTURE, HOWEVER EVERYTHING MUST FALL TO
    PROPER RATIONAL DELIBERATION.

    You might also like