Particularism Vs Pluralism

Good Essays
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

  • Decent Essays

    Truth Is Good Analysis

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The problem for the stance that lying is prima facie bad is that it would only work for a society. Lying itself is not bad in a personal sense, because it is a deceiving others. Lynch’s use of the relation between truth and lies does not work for the personal realm merely the social one. Therefore Lynch cannot completely use lies for his argument that truth as a cognitive good. Cognitive good is good in thought and thought is only in the personal realm, to become part of…

    • 1528 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moreover, it is not clear people are less motivated about non-universal values beliefs. People may vigorously defend cooperation between cultures and condemn uncooperative cultures. If people were to look at other intolerant cultures that are attempting to disrupt such cooperation between cultures they would be motivated to defend these varying non-universal values. They would defend non-universal values because they would understand that there is no one truth only moral system, only moral systems that severe or do not serve the human…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Simulating Murder Summary

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages

    On this note the experimenters responded that people who do perform such actions of harm lack empathy towards the victim. Killers lack the moral compass that supposedly is integrated on everyone. Perhaps is their egotistical nature or their unwavering confused thoughts justified their actions as morally right. Is it ok to murder someone, even if that person potentially planning on creating an atrocious act. We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How is it that people are to follow through with something without considering the consequences? Immanuel Kant argues that we as people should not act for reasons because if we do, we will be self-contradicting ourselves. He believes that we are being morally irrelevant if we base are wrong doings or right doings with consequences before we choose to do the action. He believes we should be willing to accomplish our duties and tasks without worrying about the aftermath of an action. Kant believes it should be a requirement for us to obey the moral law because it is a noble thing to do.…

    • 1804 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that we look out for society vs. favoring our friends, family and selves. Secondly, Act Utilitarianism confirms most of our existing moral theory’s because it looks at the overall net balance of goodness, it sees that acts like random rape, murder and theft result in a net negative and thus are against the morals of an Act Utilitarian. Thirdly, Act Utilitarianism enables us to resolve conflicts that other ethical theories struggle with. The example we read given in the text was about lying to a friend. While normally we would look at lying to a friend as morally wrong, if we are lying to protect their feelings and the overall net result is positive, then Act Utilitarianism supports lying.…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One way he argued for this was through his argument from relativity in which he supposes the best way to explain the wide spread moral disagreement within society was to conclude that values are relative, and there are no objective truths regarding morality. I deem this to be a successful argument, critics whom provide alternative explanations for this phenomenon make a underlying misunderstanding regarding human nature, placing too much emphasis on facts and underling general principles, both of which appear to play a fairly insignificant role in the construction of moral…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Is the so called witness trying to get even with the accused by accusing him of murder? There’s where the question takes place, is it valid to lie about something just because we have certain issues with someone when this lie will end someone’s life, when we know we are the only ones who can prevent this, as we are the only ones who know the truth. How can someone live with this type of action? Is it valid to let someone die because we are selfish and irrational human…

    • 1890 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Burns this punishment should be death, but what about the person’s fundamental rights 's to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Although Burns does not directly address it in this chapter, I believe he feels that when you commit a crime you lose these fundamental rights. But are these not fundamental rights that everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution? Their is no clause in the Constitution that says unless your a murder, you lose these rights. Allowing the government to legally kill the guilty person is wrong, and violates this person’s legal rights.…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    But the deontologist would say because you cannot will lying universally, it is ethically wrong and you should not do it, if you want to live in an honest society. But sometimes it is for the greater good to lie. There are two conflicting duties in this example: the first being the duty of telling the truth, and the second being the duty of saving another human life. There are exceptions as to when lying is morally…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics