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