Particularism Vs Pluralism

1444 Words 6 Pages
In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical theory particularism is more plausible than pluralism. First I will compare and contrast Pluralism and Particularism and argue the latter 's strength of flexibility. Secondly, I will argue that the simplicity of particularism makes it more attractive than the complex theory of pluralism. Finally, I will argue that the societal viewpoint of the “moral person” being a person of principle is idealistic. To help strengthen these arguments, I have elected to use a critique method of all of the premises in each paragraph.

Pluralism is the philosophical belief that there is no single moral principle to view right or wrong action; rather, there are several fundamental moral principles, each being
…show more content…
Particularisms theory of a situational moral permissibility is an appealing one, which is so simple that anyone can comprehend its framework. This simple framework rejects the use of moral rules and norms to make moral decisions. Rule-based theories such as pluralism at times overwhelm the simplicity of a moral rule or principle. For the particularist, ethical principles such as “Lying is bad” cannot be properly applied to certain scenarios. For example lying to someone is seen as morally impermissible in most ethical principles such as deontology and Rule consequentialism. But if we add that I’m lying to a murderer because he wants to kill my brother, I am sure the perspective of people assessing the morality of the action changes. The problem with moral principles is that a single principle leaves out too many valid moral concerns, which leads to the inability to give concrete moral procedures. If we brought this problem on a larger scale, as we do with pluralism, it leads to complex and conflicting viewpoints. Going back to my previous example, If a pluralist were to tell me , "Don’t lie ", but in the same action say consider the principle that you shouldn’t harm your loved ones ", I know I would be confused and less inclined to follow this ethical principle. Particularists promote a theory that we should face moral problems by the situation I question, which is so …show more content…
But who are we as a society to pass judgment on who is moral and immoral? Time and time again we believe a person who is lying is bad, or someone who has killed someone is a terrible human being. But too often we stop ourselves from asking why did this person lie? Or why did this person kill? Instead of doing this, we pass judgment from the privacy of our own minds and condemn acts that we see as “immoral”. This is due to the idea that man-made moral guidelines on which to live a good life, is embedded in our psyche and we use them to live our everyday lives. However, we can argue that the embodiment of the “moral person” living based on moral guidelines is fundamentally idealistic. No one can be perfectly moral, and I believe that living a life based on multiple, conflicting moral principles does not increase the greater good of a person. Rather, what it does is confuse people about their morality during a particular act. This is why I believe particularism has a strong case, as it allows for individual cases to determine someone’s, morality, which makes it appear to be a more genuine and realistic philosophical framework. In Brad Hookers paper “Moral Particularism Wrong and Bad”, he provides numerous rebuttals to the particularist view. Hooker provides numerous reasons against particularism; in particular, he argues that it is a wrong and bad framework. He argues that a

Related Documents

Related Topics