One example that could help explain my claim that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules is an example that observes how a particularist and a generalist respond to a specific general rule. The general rule I want to discuss is the rule that says “always tell the truth”. A generalist would respond to this rule by arguing that one should only tell the truth if it maximizes goodness or happiness. The generalist would use rule-based judgement in order to determine if the truth maximizes happiness or not. A particularist would respond to this rule by arguing that there is no reason to believe that one should always tell the truth (Dancy, Jonathan). A particularist considers the variability
…show more content…
In response to my argument that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules, one can argue that a particularist way of thinking abandons objectivity since there are no universal or general rules associated with moral particularism. One can argue this idea because of the argument that Immanuel Kant makes when he states that if you obey the principle of universalizability which says that an act is morally acceptable if and only if its maxim is universalizable, then you act morally (Shafer-Landau, Russ: Ch. 11). Kant’s argument about the principle of universalizability says that a maxim has to be universalizable in order to be considered moral. This means that the maxim has to be supported and acted on by everyone in the world. If the maxim can be achieved meaning it is consistent and rational and followed then it is universalizable and moral. I can combat this argument by saying that morality is objective because there are objective facts about what constitutes moral behavior, and these facts lie in the nature of the agent’s action, regardless of individual opinion (Hippolitus, Sarah). A universal or general rule does not determine if morality is objective. I can argue that moral particularism does not abandon objectivity because it is based on all the circumstances and facts presented when considering a particular decision. A generalist neglects relevant details in decision making in order to maximize goodness. Particularists argue that principled guidance or rules leads us to engage in bad decision making because rules are too rigid and it leads individuals, such as generalists, to neglect or distort relevant details (Zamzow, Jennifer L.). Therefore, particularism does not abandon objectivity, but rather enforces objective thought more than general or universal rules
In response to my argument that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules, one can argue that a particularist way of thinking abandons objectivity since there are no universal or general rules associated with moral particularism. One can argue this idea because of the argument that Immanuel Kant makes when he states that if you obey the principle of universalizability which says that an act is morally acceptable if and only if its maxim is universalizable, then you act morally (Shafer-Landau, Russ: Ch. 11). Kant’s argument about the principle of universalizability says that a maxim has to be universalizable in order to be considered moral. This means that the maxim has to be supported and acted on by everyone in the world. If the maxim can be achieved meaning it is consistent and rational and followed then it is universalizable and moral. I can combat this argument by saying that morality is objective because there are objective facts about what constitutes moral behavior, and these facts lie in the nature of the agent’s action, regardless of individual opinion (Hippolitus, Sarah). A universal or general rule does not determine if morality is objective. I can argue that moral particularism does not abandon objectivity because it is based on all the circumstances and facts presented when considering a particular decision. A generalist neglects relevant details in decision making in order to maximize goodness. Particularists argue that principled guidance or rules leads us to engage in bad decision making because rules are too rigid and it leads individuals, such as generalists, to neglect or distort relevant details (Zamzow, Jennifer L.). Therefore, particularism does not abandon objectivity, but rather enforces objective thought more than general or universal rules