Regan And Midgley: Understanding The Reality Of Moral Judgment Analysis

Midterm, Regan and Midgley: Understanding the Reality of Moral Judgment According to Tom Regan in “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” moral judgment is irrelevant to the reality of moral truth. Though such judgments require understanding, justification, sound reasoning, real-world application, and independent verification, the mere existence of such judgments does not affect the truth of the matter. In “Moral Isolationism” Mary Midgley adopts a similar conclusion to Regan, though she does so through the argument of individual morality. Rather than supporting this argument of necessary moral judgment through a standpoint of universal morality—like Regan—, she refutes moral cultural relativism through a criticism of the popular practice of non-judgment (which she believes to be a moral judgment itself) and an encouragement of cultural understanding and respect. In this paper I will argue that though the conclusions on moral judgment that Regan and Midgley arrive at are compatible, their respective reasons for arriving at these conclusions are not harmonious. As a result of this interaction, Regan’s theory threatens the foundation of the …show more content…
In “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” Regan asserts that moral truth is independent of one’s moral judgment, thus making moral truth a universal reality. In “Moral Isolationism,” Midgley argues that one can morally judge another culture if individual understanding is present. Despite their cohesive conclusions, there is not harmony between the two theories’ premises. Regan’s view on universal moral truth directly rejects Midgley’s idea that moral truth relies on a complete understanding behind the justification of another’s moral judgment. If moral questions were approached the way Regan believes they should be, the “isolating barriers” that Midgley criticized would not be within question, because morality is not relative or