Which approach offers the most compelling account of the normative force of our associative obligations: ethical universalism or ethical particularism?
A traditional conception of morality constitutes a particular fundamental set of values universal to every individual so that all persons should be treated with fair and unprejudiced examination for their well-beings or interests respectively. As opposed to the above ethical universalism’s view, ethical particularism suggests that morality of an action is determined by the configuration of relevant features of that action specifically and that there is preferential considerations given to the interest of some against others, such as family or friendship and local or social community. I argue …show more content…
Nationality is a subjective concept considered as the shared beliefs of a group of people that every one of them belongs together with the rest; and that this community is not transitory but originated from a long history of staying together and is hoped to continue in the future (Miller, 1988). Goodin (1988) suggests that we can think of nations as “mutual benefit societies” in which the special obligations to compatriots are originated from the possibility that everyone may benefit from doing so. If an established practice is beneficial, everyone ought to contribute as a beneficiary; but nobody is obligated if such practices do not exist. Even if it did exist, special duties will be owned to the state instead of the nation. State provide laws and norms that could be qualified as mutual benefit society, but nationality is stemmed from our attachment to our compatriots whom we support the setting up of mutual benefit practices. Ethical significance of nationality cannot be explained by such practice. Our rights and obligations to the nation are not justified.
The reason to justify ethical particularism by ethical universalism is to set up a more coherent field of morality and depict a good justification as to how our associative obligations can be determined. …show more content…
First, principle of universalism justifies the moral subprinciple of the voluntary association. A married couple forms a kind of volunteer group, like the football team example mentioned above, and the freedom component of universalism justified any rules or preferences set up between couples. Second, the creation of families with any purposes are justified by the sub-principle. Parents usually show an abundance of caring and concern to their children. Lastly, these concerns justify the special preference family members have for each other. The justification is intrinsically valued as the justifications of different stages proceed through the same special purpose for which the couple married, form a family and
A traditional conception of morality constitutes a particular fundamental set of values universal to every individual so that all persons should be treated with fair and unprejudiced examination for their well-beings or interests respectively. As opposed to the above ethical universalism’s view, ethical particularism suggests that morality of an action is determined by the configuration of relevant features of that action specifically and that there is preferential considerations given to the interest of some against others, such as family or friendship and local or social community. I argue …show more content…
Nationality is a subjective concept considered as the shared beliefs of a group of people that every one of them belongs together with the rest; and that this community is not transitory but originated from a long history of staying together and is hoped to continue in the future (Miller, 1988). Goodin (1988) suggests that we can think of nations as “mutual benefit societies” in which the special obligations to compatriots are originated from the possibility that everyone may benefit from doing so. If an established practice is beneficial, everyone ought to contribute as a beneficiary; but nobody is obligated if such practices do not exist. Even if it did exist, special duties will be owned to the state instead of the nation. State provide laws and norms that could be qualified as mutual benefit society, but nationality is stemmed from our attachment to our compatriots whom we support the setting up of mutual benefit practices. Ethical significance of nationality cannot be explained by such practice. Our rights and obligations to the nation are not justified.
The reason to justify ethical particularism by ethical universalism is to set up a more coherent field of morality and depict a good justification as to how our associative obligations can be determined. …show more content…
First, principle of universalism justifies the moral subprinciple of the voluntary association. A married couple forms a kind of volunteer group, like the football team example mentioned above, and the freedom component of universalism justified any rules or preferences set up between couples. Second, the creation of families with any purposes are justified by the sub-principle. Parents usually show an abundance of caring and concern to their children. Lastly, these concerns justify the special preference family members have for each other. The justification is intrinsically valued as the justifications of different stages proceed through the same special purpose for which the couple married, form a family and