Moral Claim Analysis

In philosophy, one can see how attempts are made to support our moral claims. Although some do pose more significance than others, philosophers have to look at all the perspectives and views of each foundation. These foundations of morality include realist views, relativism, and nihilism. The validity of the views of each claim depends on multiple factors. Since in philosophy one sees the three foundation of morality, there is a way to identify what facts support ones moral claims. In realist views, one takes moral facts to be genuine, objective feature of the world. What does this mean? Philosophers tell one that whatever facts are told are meant to be true. There are five laws that backup the gentility of the realist view. These laws are …show more content…
How does this supposedly backup how moral facts are genuinely objective? In this theory, an individual makes the right choices or what one believes to be right under a hypothetical social contract. In this social contract, one lacks ignorance and uncertainty, therefore if everyone accepts a certain rule then it must not be rejected. If it not rejected by our society then it must be genuine and objective. The morality of a claim derives from our social norms is either agreed or disagreed by the normative force from the idea of mutual agreement. One can say that classes at College of Staten Island can be sometimes difficult based on the work, the professor and the field or subject. This can be accepted as genuine and objective because if not all, then most students and teachers would agree to this rule and this is where contractarianism supports the validity. On the other hand if one said that at Six Flags Great Adventure one can have their dreams come true, it would considered false because it is not accepted by the social norms. In social norms, our society would accept Disneyland as a place where dreams come true because that is the motto that was respectfully given to …show more content…
According to eudamonism, living well means doing good. But one really does not the actual definition of what a good life consists of. Is doing good having good economical standings justified enough to living well? Does one have to have a supportive family with a good job and the American Dream at their fingertips to be living well? It is believed that right actions will lead one to become a well being of an individual. This theory is believed that one needs happiness in their life. As I said before what causes this happiness that leads to a good life. Each person has a different way of satisfying his or her needs therefore this theory is pointless. If a person is going to perform a crime that makes one happy, even though in the eyes of the law it is wrong to do it, then how does this justify moral facts to be genuine, objective feature of the world? With this theory there is no wrong doing in the world because everything that is done is to achieve