To clarify his central theme of rejecting objectivity in moral reasoning, Mackie explains “The Argument of Relativity” which discusses the variation in moral perspectives from other societies and cultures who experience different methods of living. Since every civilization differs in living standards and their ways of life, it can be agreed that not everyone will have identical sets of moral values. As a result, this dismantles the idea of having objective moral reasoning. This is because it’s not possible for one population cannot be more right or moral than the other since they all have differentiating values. In turn, since this moral disagreement exists amongst individualistic settlements, Mackie says that it’s implausible to have a universalistic,
…show more content…
Objectivity can successfully be attained when we filter out all of our feelings, biases, and emotions. Only then can something be true and relate to the reality of the world. However, the nature of being a human being is to have these varying sentiments about how we exist in this world and what we distinguish as good or bad. As individuals, we are all predisposed to some method of judgment through our social interactions and visually experiencing what is right and wrong just by living our lives in a community that uphold similar beliefs. This can be supported through the argument of relativity. Because the human race is composed of diversified nations and cultures, we cannot establish a succinct, objective moral constitution because of the world’s increasing diversity. It’s difficult to dismantle what has been instilled into your mind all your life because we are constantly faced with emotional ties and personal attitudes. As Mackie stated, there will be the small few who turn against the already established rules for other moral reasons, but this act is simply an extension which arised “out of an existing way of life” (Mackie 651). This supports the idea that somehow we will always be connected to our underlying moral influences and that our individualistic biases never truly go away. Consequently, objectivity cannot be attained since humans are always linked to their thoughts, emotions and feelings which enhances the argument for
Objectivity can successfully be attained when we filter out all of our feelings, biases, and emotions. Only then can something be true and relate to the reality of the world. However, the nature of being a human being is to have these varying sentiments about how we exist in this world and what we distinguish as good or bad. As individuals, we are all predisposed to some method of judgment through our social interactions and visually experiencing what is right and wrong just by living our lives in a community that uphold similar beliefs. This can be supported through the argument of relativity. Because the human race is composed of diversified nations and cultures, we cannot establish a succinct, objective moral constitution because of the world’s increasing diversity. It’s difficult to dismantle what has been instilled into your mind all your life because we are constantly faced with emotional ties and personal attitudes. As Mackie stated, there will be the small few who turn against the already established rules for other moral reasons, but this act is simply an extension which arised “out of an existing way of life” (Mackie 651). This supports the idea that somehow we will always be connected to our underlying moral influences and that our individualistic biases never truly go away. Consequently, objectivity cannot be attained since humans are always linked to their thoughts, emotions and feelings which enhances the argument for