Three Theories Of Moral Realism

“Moral Realism”

It is 200,000 B.C. the first Neanderthal steps out of his cave dwelling, he is considering if something that happened is right or wrong, but how is he to know? There is no formal set of rules to follow when considering right and wrong. Morality is the age old question, “what is right and wrong”, and “what is good and bad”. Human beings have been asking questions about morality since the dawn of time. Can we as humans actually be in charge of our own moral laws? People all around the world have many different theories and views about morality. Morality has evolved throughout the centuries, but there is still no universal understanding of morals. Morality plays a huge part in society. It is hard to determine the exact definition

It can be quite hard to get an exact definition of morals, since there isn’t one. There is a basic statement regarding what morals are, “represents a set of standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.” So therefore the main universal understanding of morals is to uphold certain standards and not break rules that are given or made. The first of three theories of morals is Moral Realism. Moral realism is the theory that there exists a universal set of moral rules that every person should understand. Moral realists believe that God has created a set of moral rules for us to follow. The approaches to the moral realism theory include the Devine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Consequentialism. One of the approaches to Moral Realism, Devine Command Theory is the idea that “an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” The second moral theory is Moral Nonrealism, which yes, sounds like the first one, but it is the opposite. Moral nonrealism is the theory that there is not any real determination between what is right and what is wrong, and humans aren’t able to obtain the knowledge of determining what is right and wrong. Some approaches to moral nonrealism are; Moral Skepticism, and Moral Nihilism. Moral Skeptics “do not

Individual relativism is a part of the relativism theory. Individual relativism is the theory that every single individual has their own set of moral laws, but individuals do not have the right to tell other individuals what they should value as moral or immoral. Most people’s morals are actually based on themselves, their upbringing, their culture, their genetics. Strengths behind individual relativism is that it is very open-minded to other people’s opinions about morals and ethics. Another strength is that relativists aren’t so quick to judge others based on their moral views. A major weakness behind individual relativism is that, “it refutes itself. If whatever I believe…such as a God who judges us when we die, I am right, and the atheist is wrong. (But the individual relativist also says that the atheist is correct, so how can God exist and not exist?)” That is a big weakness because it lacks evidence, it doesn’t allow for any moral