Every ethical statement can be categorized based on how the statement relates to the popular beliefs, cultural beliefs, and personal beliefs. This can be better described as ‘metaethics’ which is a second-order philosophical analysis that dives into the nature, meaning, and justification of ethical statements (Gerard). Metethics involves thinking about thinking, and it does so by making questioning statements. Typically it asks: “how do we know that a given normative statement is ‘true’? We have to rely on intuition, or direct insight of apprehension without proof? Does a normative statement describe empirical reality in some way? Or does it merely reflect the psychological and emotional state of an individual? Finally, if we grant that there
…show more content…
Objectivism utilizes universal reason at the base of a particular moral statement, but understands that there are some circumstances where those reasons are not applicable. This type of view is one that I find to be the most reasonable and widely acceptable but others. It is widely known that killing in general is an impermissible action, but there are situation where it becomes necessary such as to defend your own life. Although reason says it is not acceptable to kill, obectivism know that there are certain circumstances where one must kill for to protect themselves or for the greater-good. Cultural relativism, to me is a more passive point of view, where one understands that they cannot truly understand the beliefs of another culture thus it would be wrong to claim their actions are impermissible based on their own cultural views. Although, this can only relate to situations where basic humans rights are being upheld. There are situations where human rational can begin to conflict with such a view, and one can consider a culture’s view to be morally impermissible. If an entire culture believes it is acceptable to kill off another culture because their beliefs conflict, it could be considered morally impermissible. These are similar to the way I examine situations before I consider them permissible or
Objectivism utilizes universal reason at the base of a particular moral statement, but understands that there are some circumstances where those reasons are not applicable. This type of view is one that I find to be the most reasonable and widely acceptable but others. It is widely known that killing in general is an impermissible action, but there are situation where it becomes necessary such as to defend your own life. Although reason says it is not acceptable to kill, obectivism know that there are certain circumstances where one must kill for to protect themselves or for the greater-good. Cultural relativism, to me is a more passive point of view, where one understands that they cannot truly understand the beliefs of another culture thus it would be wrong to claim their actions are impermissible based on their own cultural views. Although, this can only relate to situations where basic humans rights are being upheld. There are situations where human rational can begin to conflict with such a view, and one can consider a culture’s view to be morally impermissible. If an entire culture believes it is acceptable to kill off another culture because their beliefs conflict, it could be considered morally impermissible. These are similar to the way I examine situations before I consider them permissible or