In the film Cruel Logic, both the perspectives make a de-ontological arrangement of morals that depend on science cases for moral standards (Godawa, 2007). Assuming an individual needs to make a contemplated arrangement of good and bad without God, there is no reason for that framework outside science. According to the viewpoint of developmental science, people are hard-wired to advance endurance and, now and again, the persistence of their gathering. In these perspectives, there is no justification for moral discussion. It is difficult to make a case that one case of standard or postmodernist morals is better than another without some settling upon the reason for conversation. Without a conviction framework that advances to a higher force or an otherworldly standard, it is not easy to get down on somebody’s conduct as off-base when it is by and large acknowledged by society. These are horrid perspectives that can’t give a sound record of a large number of the central ideas at the foundation of law and governance issues and cannot represent real lived encounters on the planet.
The upside of Christianity or polytheism is that you can interest the language and custom of the confidence in taking part in the moral discussion. There is no unmistakable Christian arrangement of morals, yet Christianity gives grounds to commitment. A Christian individual would trust it is a major sin to kill somebody and that God would condemn the person who submits it. A Marxist person views that certain crimes can be committed depending on the social status and purpose of the criminal (Youngmevittaya, 2019). He or she would not justify the murder in the film since the professor has a high position while the murder harms society.
Godawa, B. (Director). (2007). Cruel Logic [Film]. Embedded Pictures
Youngmevittaya, W. (2019). Ethics, freedom, and capitalism: A critical account of Marxism and libertarianism. Journal of Social Sciences Naresuan University, 12(2), 71-111.