Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In …show more content…
This notion often comes with “should” or “ought”, grounding those who believe in this morality how to act in different circumstances. Just as Harman points out, grammar to language is what morality to certain actions and attitudes: the inability to draw a demarcation between grammar and non-grammar does not interfere with our understanding of what grammar is. Because there is a specific use of “should” and “ought” that addresses the moral judgments, the idea of morality is something that compels us to make such judgments as what we/audiences should or should not do. For example, when faced with the dilemma of prosecuting his father or not, Euthyphro thinks he should (ought to) prosecute his father because justice is impartial. This use of “should” is a moral statement concerning with his morality. A clearer example of such statement is that “you should not lie to other people”. The existence of such use of language simply suggests that there is something, if not called morality, functions as what we call “morality”. The detailed analysis with philosophy of language is not the concern of this paper, and so I will not go into further semantic discussions of morality.
Having established that morality exists, P2 is true once I have defined moral relativism and moral absolutism. It is self-evident that for a countable thing to exist, it must be either one or more than one. This notion
…show more content…
First, it resonates with Jean Paul Sartre’s view that the meaning in life is defined by ourselves, and an ensuing positivity emanates from moral relativism. If we know that we can decide how to live a good life, then we will not wait for the single true morality to find us, but rather start to create a better world for every like-minded fellow creature (one who wants to seek a good life). In this way, we can form alliances to hunt down criminals who object to universal moral facts (e.g., Hitler), while sharing with each other our points of view on how we should
Throughout this paper I will examine three different ethical views and interpret the ways in which one would respond to the scenario at hand. The initial ethical view is composed of cultural relativism. Another view is Kantian ethics. The final view involves utilitarianism. When presenting these views, I will describe each ethical view, and also I will speak abouts how a person who abides by the given ethical view would respond to the situation.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
(1) Schafer, Karl. "Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement." The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50.4 (2012): 602-20. Web.
"Who's to judge who's right or wrong?" In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no
Many seem to have falling prey to the seduction of ethical relativism, because it plays in to their ethnocentric egoistic moral belief. Individuals such as Pojman are able to critically evaluate this moral principle and not fall victim like his or hers lay counter parts. We will attempt to analyze the theory of ethical relativism, by check the validity of this ethical theory, and evaluate its ethical concepts. With these procedures we will find if it is competent as an ethical principle to adhere by. Then evaluate Louis Pojman critique on ethical relativism and analyze does he successfully refute relativism position. We will also analyze objectivism; the ethical theory which Pojman erects in the place of ethical relativism.
Moral relativism has two conceptualized frameworks that describe statements. These are Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. Cognitivism in a nutshell is merely the opposite of non-cognitivism. Relatively, it is the certainty that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. Moral judgments generally dwell in this arena due to the element that people incline to make moral judgments a large part in their decision-making and anything which is non-existent in moral values tends to be discarded. The spectrum that Cognitivism belongs to is so broad that it encompasses the milieus of moral realism, moral subjectivism and error theory. Hillary Putnam in his book, Ethics without ontology states that ethical (including mathematical) sentences can be factual and unprejudiced
Johnstone, M., Primmer, J. (2014). [Lecture]. Morality I: Divine Command Theories of Ethics. PHILOS 1E03, Problems of Philosophy. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.
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.
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.
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.
Justice and morality can be viewed hand in hand as justice is based off a foundation of moral beliefs involving ethics, fairness and the law. The nature of justice and morality and how they are related has been debated heavily throughout philosophical history. When analyzing Nietzsche’s work On the Genealogy of Morals, and Thrasymachus in Plato’s, Republic it is evident that they have similarities and differences when one compares their individual accounts on the nature and genesis of justice and morality. Such similarities are their views on the nature of society and humans are naturally unequal. In addition, both philosophers agree with the statement that there can be no common good amongst society and that all moral values are socially created. On the other hand, although Nietzsche and Thrasymachus have these resemblances between their accounts, they each have unique personal differences which set them apart from each other.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Harman, G. (2000). Is there a single true morality?. Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy (pp. 77-99). Oxford: Clarendon Press ;.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.