Ethics Number 2

There are several ways you could respond to the statement that there are no moral absolutes. First you could state several horrors in the world and ask if you think that they would be ok in any circumstance. Because I cannot see any situation in which violent rape, or murder of an innocent person is ever justifyable. You could also punch the person in the face. And then just say "hey it wasnt wrong in my point of view, or just steal from them". I mean no moral relativist would say it is ok to murder and rape there family. If this is too strong for someone then you could also say that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute statement, therefore contradicting itself. And finally you could say that we all have a conscience for actions and that moral absolutes are what govern are world and what separate humans from animals. You cannot say there are no moral absolutes because it doesnt accurately portray society in any way. It is a statement that contradicts itself and at its roots makes no sense.

Karma UTT blog

Karma cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong for several reasons. First of all since Karma does not distinguish between actions and what is evil, how do we know what is right and wrong? And also if there is a natural right and wrong then there must be a sort of universal truth, which Hinduism and Karmeic followers deny. Therefore we cannot judge peoples actions as right in wrong unless there is a distinguishment between what is good and evil, which karma does not define."The theory of karma harps on the Newtonian principle that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction", this is honestly a ridiculous idea considering that many terrible people continue living happy lives on earth. The other problem with Karma is that it would create a separation of people because you would not want to help the less fortunate, since they are just taking the reprocutions of their actions. So in summation Karma doesnt work because it does not accurately portray the world that is, and it cannot define good and evil, and why we sin, and it also creates a very cold and harsh perspective towards the less fortunate.

Philosophy Number 3

Naturalism does not explain truth reality and knowledge at all. Since everything is a matter of chance it would not explain or consciousness or our souls. It also would state that everything we have mentally is just simple chemical reaction it cannot explain our knowledge or ability to think at all. Also since everything is just chemical chance we cannot know what reality is and also there can be no truth because it is just chemical and what we percieve. Therefore I feel that naturalism can have no moral absolutes. Therefore I dont think naturalism works as a philosophy because it doesnt accurately explain truth, reality or knowledge.