Moral Realism In this paper, I examine the connection between judgments of fact and moral judgments in an attempt to discern whether moral judgments are simply a subset of judgments of fact. I will look mostly at an argument posed by many moral realists that takes moral facts to be “supervenient natural facts which are independent of our theorizing about them”1 and in which moral judgments are determined by objective facts which relate to human flourishing or pleasure and pain. I will also, though, take a look at the fact/value gap and determine the effect on the connection between moral judgments and judgments of fact of an attempt to close this gap. In the article “Moral Realism and Moral Judgments”, Frederik Kaufman argues that judgments of fact display a certain degree of conceptual sensitivity to error which is not present in moral judgments. He concludes from this that moral judgments cannot be a subset of judgments of fact. In setting up his argument, Kaufman claims that for the most part we form judgments of fact in virtue of natural facts being a certain way, entailing that correct judgments are causal consequences of natural facts.2 Under this conception, moral judgments, if they are indeed a subset of judgments of fact, must also be causal consequences of natural facts3. This conception also gains for the moral realist the idea that moral knowledge is possible, for if there is a causal connection, then the moral judgments gained are gained because of certain natural facts. The next question necessarily revolves around the delivery mechanism. Moral realists must argue that moral judgments have at least an initial plausibility, for if grave errors are made in either the causal connection or the delivery mechanism, it would not seem that there would be a valid reason for believing that any of the moral judgments we make are judgments of fact. As David Brink argues, “the degree of credibility of considered moral beliefs probably corresponds more closely with the credibility of these [credible theoretical beliefs] Ö All I claim is that considered moral beliefs have initial credibility.”4 Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
Hitler was furious with Germany’s surrender in World War I, so when he got back to his home in Munich, he was determined to enter politics and become the greatest leader in German history (Smith). He spent all of his time and effort trying to become the chancellor of Germany. Once he was voted into being chancellor, he needed a way to become the leader of all of Germany. Hitler gathered power through many acts of t...
In John Ludwig Mackie’s book Inventing Right and Wrong, he claims that “in making moral judgments we are pointing to something objectively prescriptive, but that these judgments are all false”. By saying this, he supports his main point that there are no objective values. However, John McDowell will be against Mackie’s argument, for he suggests that besides primary qualities, there are also secondary qualities that can be objective. I hold the same viewpoint as McDowell’s. In this essay, I will firstly explain Mackie’s argument, then illustrate McDowell’s objections, and finally explore some potential responses by Mackie.
In January of 1933, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as chancellor of Germany. At the time Hitler assumed power, the German government was suffering due to the Great Depression caused by World War 1. Hitler, a man who had spent the entirety of his political career denouncing and attempting to destroy the German Republic, was now the leader of said Republic. Hitler was widely supported by his Nazi party. Hitler was very vocal in letting his displeasures be known and his people believed his repeated promises to get rid of the Treaty of Versailles and enlarge the army. All of his promises were made in order to bring back Germany's former glory. However, almost immediately upon becoming the Chancellor of Germany, Hitler began taking legal actions against Germany's Jewish population.
Hitler’s rise to power can be attributed to a series of events occurring both in Germany and the rest of the world in the mid 20th century. In the year 1929, due to the collapse of the American Stock Exchange the economic situation in Germany terribly worsened. “’I see myself as Chancellor and I will be Chancellor,’ Hitler told Hans Frank, who by then had become his lawyer.” (P.64) Hitler believed in himself and eventually received the power he aimed for. Unemployment was at around 6 million and people were desperate for a quick ...
One can only be torn to threads by society so much before they are no longer themselves. Societies are constantly ruling the people and telling them how to live and in Margaret Atwood’s book, The Handmaid’s Tale, no one is more to blame than the society of Gilead. Gilead is a society where every basic human right is taken from women and their role in society is specifically and only to provide their uterus to a qualifying male. In most novels, the character overcomes their weakness or struggle in life and they become the better person or the hero of the novel. Offred in this case, does not rise to the occasion and become the hero. It is partially her own fault and partially the society's fault. In the dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, by
ABSTRACT: The realist dispute in ethics has wide implications for moral ontology, epistemology, and semantics. Common opinion holds that this debate goes to the heart of the phenomenology of moral values and affects the way in which we understand the nature of moral value, moral disagreement, and moral reflection. But it has not been clearly demonstrated what is involved in moral realist theory. I provide a framework which distinguishes three different versions of the theory while at the same time showing the interrelations between them. I also demonstrate how issues such as objectivity, cognitivism, and truth can be related into the discussion by means of this framework.
Hitler represented the evil side of any human beings in the world, and he had done many brutal actions towards people. Adolf Hitler was a little-known political leader whose early life had been marked by disappointment. He formed the Nazis party, where they shared the belief that Germany are required to overturn the Treaty of Versailles. During the Depression, many Germans turned to Hitler for security and firm leadership, ”With terrible economic conditions and rapid inflation, support for Hitler's party grew. By 1923, the Nazi's had 56,000 members and many more supporters” (Adolf Hitler Biography). Soon, President Hindenburg announced Hitler the chancellor and he came to power legally. With majority control, Hitler demanded absolute power and turned Germany into a totalitarian state. Hitler waited for the right time to step out and control the people, ”[Hitler] had a charismatic talent that he used for evil to accomplish something beneficial to him” (Maria Langstaff). With such power, Hitler abused it and o...
The ability to create life is an amazing thing but being forced to have children for strangers is not so amazing. Offred is a handmaid, handmaid's have children for government officials, such as Commander Waterford. Offred used to be married to Luke and together they had a daughter but then everything changed; Offred was separated from her family and assigned to a family as their handmaid. The society which Offred is forced to live in shaped her in many ways. In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood uses cultural and geographical surroundings to shape Offred's psychological and moral traits as she tries to survive the society that she is forced to live, in hopes that she can rebel and make change.
Hitler consolidated power in 1933 when he was elected Chancellor of Germany. In order to establish control, Nazis dealt with all forms of opposition by banning Political Parties. By the summer of 1933, all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated, therefore the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Within eighteen months Hitler was appointed Furher, and he had a plan to transform the country into a totalitarian regime.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
In November, 1923, a German veteran, Adolf Hitler, tried following Mussolini’s example in staging a small coupe in Munich. This coupe failed and Hitler tried seizing Munich but failed and became imprisoned. Within the next decade, Hitler became a legal ruler. Hitler’s rise to power cause questioning, how did this ruthless leader gain the utter support of Germans? The answer to this question is still unknown to this day.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.