J. L. Mackie is an error theorist, who believes that moral values are not objective. He believes that most people have false views about morality, because they have made an invalid assumption that moral values are objective. Mackie makes two main arguments. The first one is the argument from relativity. Mackie argues that moral views differ based on culture, which are influenced by various internal and external variables, which affect the way people live. Mackie uses the example of monogamy. If the culture accepts it, then the individual will because they go along with what their culture accepts. The second argument is the argument from queerness. Mackie makes two points in this argument. First, he says that if moral values were objective,
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Corvino is right in defending the morality of homosexuality, because homosexuality is morally sound. This essay has a very sound argument. Majority of the essay is spent pointing flaws in the opposition, rendering the opposing arguments null. I enjoy Corvino’s argument because by making all the opposing arguments invalid, readers are led to one conclusion: Homosexual sex is morally sound.
His theory as to why homosexuality is abnormal (because of humans misusing their body parts) may propose a weak argument at first; however he supports this aspect of his argument by giving an example unrelated to human sexuality. His example involves the use of our teeth, although we may not realize it, those who do not have teeth usually don’t enjoy consuming all of their food through a straw.... ... middle of paper ... ...
He believes that a lot of thing that people value in life, such as clothing and medicine, “are unnatural in some sense” (211). Yet, no one suggests those being immoral. On the other hand, disease and death, for example, “are ‘natural’ in the sense that they occur ‘in nature’” (211). So being unusual isn’t enough to be called as immoral. The arguements of abnormal, offensive or disguesting do not make things “unnatural” either because there are activities such as eating snails or cleaning toilets that disguest people but aren’t listed as immoral. Moreover, arguements such as animal practice and moral innation do not label homoseuality unnatural because after all, what is normal can't in any way, shape or form be characterized. By the end of this section, he concluded that “homosexuality is either perfectly natural or, if unnatural, is not unnatural in a way that makes it immoral”
...ouple of spots in his argument may be hazy, you are able to make a logical leap from statement to statement, in my opinion. His argument should also convince anyone else with a remotely open mind about where morality really comes from.
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
In order for Corvino to make his position that gay sex is not morally “unnatural”, he must first respond to several arguments. Many natural law theorists believe that sexual organs should only be used for three distinct purposes; reproduction, making a home for children through marriage, and emotional bonds. However, Corvino responds to this by arguing many of the human organs can be used for different functions, therefore we cannot make an argument defending only sexual organs. In his work he refers to this principle of what can be considered natural and unnatural when stating, “If the unnaturalness charge is to be more than empty rhetorical flourish, those who levy it must specify what they mean” (Corvino 84). He uses this statement to support his claim that gay sex is morally natural by proving that society often claims many “unnaturally” processed goods as being natural. If this is the case then we cannot define a human function as “unnatural” with any moral justification.
As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels,
Moral relativism is the concept that people’s moral judgement can only goes as far a one person’s standpoint in a matter. Also, one person’s view on a particular subject carries no extra weight than another person. What I hope to prove in my thesis statement are inner judgements, moral disagreements, and science are what defend and define moral relativism.
My arguments will be ignoring a major element in factoring the morality of homosexuality, the law. Yes, many people know that stealing and murder are both wrong, but this is based on socialization and learning passed down from previous generations. The aim isn’t to ignore the rules, but examples from history relating to homosexuality will not aid in proving ground for its ethics. A rational, autonomous decision making process must be used in order to decipher right from wrong, which can lead to solid, concrete answers.
Cultural relativism is the idea that moral and ethical systems varying from culture to culture, are all equally credible and no one system is morally greater than any other. Cultural relativism is based on the concept that there is no “ultimate” standard of good and evil, so the judgement of what is seen as moral, or immoral, is simply a product of one’s society and/or culture. The general consensus of this view is that there is no ethical position that may be considered “right” or “wrong” in terms of society and culture (Cultural Relativism). In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is not an adequate view of morality by providing evidence of its most common logical problems and faulty reasoning.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.