Must we then decide among them not simply on the basis of their adequacy to explain and justify moral judgments but on the basis of simple preference, i.e. because we "like" one better than another? We are more likely to believe a moral theory that says that most of our moral beliefs are correct, then one that says that most of our moral beliefs are inconsistent. Of course no theory will make them all come out true. We have to balance the question of our philosophical grounds for believing that the moral theory is in fact true — that it corresponds to the demands that actually exist for us in reality — rather than merely being an accurate codification of what we happen to believe.
The particularist and the generalist both think that the perfectly moral person is one who is aware of the moral reasons present in a situation. However, the particularist has a different view of what it means to be aware of these reasons. The particularist’s view is one that takes moral reasons to operate in the same way that other or more ordinary reasons of action function (Dancy, Jonathan). The particularist believes in variability. This means that the particularist doesn’t believe that we are required to apply our principles consistently or apply the same principle to similar cases.
An objection can be that his conception is limited because it only deals with morals and leaves the legal point of view aside. But does that really matter? Waldron is talking only about morality, and since legal positivism suggest that law and morality should be separated so they can be analyzed in greater details, shouldn't it not matter if he was not focusing on the legal matter but enhancing the idea of morality that will later on serve and enhance legality? an overall look at Waldron’s ideas can conclude that his ideas are logical and hard to rebut because he speaks the truth about having a moral right to do wrong.
‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14). Rachels states that, “cultural relativism would not only forbid us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it would stop us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 700). However, there are some reasons one may accept relativism and it is because it is a comforting position.
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
The Distance Between Morality and Luck In the moral realm, I tend to align my intuitions with Kantian morality, forming a very strict interpretation of those actions which carry moral worth. As one who believes that the world is not governed by determinism, I place a great deal of emphasis on moral evaluation. This is why I find Nagel’s Moral Luck article so troubling. Nagel describes a concept which, if accurate, completely undercuts our conception of morality, disabling the ability to apply moral worth to decisions. I find, however, that one can tackle his dilemma and reveal holes in his argument in a manner that would allow us to uphold the concept of morality and moral evaluation in the world.
Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory. Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110).
To be more specific, they should be virtue guidelines instead of specific rules. It also explain the disagreement of moral issues: maybe what people disagree is the way they portray the general moral facts rather than the facts themselves. In addition, even though there are objective moral truths, it does not mean they have to be
P2: Well informed, open minded people intractably disagree about all ethical claims C: Therefore there are no objective moral truths. This is the fundamental claim for moral relativism. Cultural relativism is really an application of this statement as it acknowledges that individuals disagree about ethical claims, but aims to impose a ‘golden rule’ to determine whether an act is morally wrong or right. To put the cultural relativism theory into words: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted by the moral code of the society to which the agent belongs. The studies of cultural relativism and moral relativism are often confused and it is important to know how to differentiate between the two.
Kant argues that human reasoning is limited in its ability to provide an example of true morality. In his essay, he states that what humans perceive as good morals does not necessarily fit the conditions of what can be categorized as universal law of morality. Kant believes that people must hold morality not solely as an idea or set of exceptions but as an absolute idea (Kant 408). This absolute idea should be free of human rationalization in order to create a pure example. He believes this to be the case because within this form of rationalizing what is good from what is wrong there are often cases that stray away from true virtue such as human behavior.