“Morality is like etiquette inasmuch as it is the product of social convention” (Shafer-Landau and Cuneo 81). For Gilbert Harman, a moral relativist, moral properties are the product of the agents within a given society. For these agents, an action is morally right relative to one group’s frame of reference and morally wrong relative to another. Bullfighting, the issue we are challenging, is viewed by many people to be morally wrong as it involves cruelty to animals that many would define as barbaric. In trying to think about moral relativism in regard to bullfighting, it’s useful to keep in mind the many differences in the moralities that people accept and live by. Moralities differ in what they imply about many controversial issues, such
…show more content…
Instead he believes that there are actually many varying moralities, just as there is not a single true language but many different ones. In this essay I will explain that despite the notion that different individuals in a given group have varying definitions of behavioral morals, it is their shared intentions as a group that ultimately determine how they understand and act out moral judgments. We will consider this notion in response to the morality of bullfighting in England.
In regard to moral relativism, the position that moral judgements are not universal but relative to persons within a group, Harman states that there is no way to objectively show that one moral is more correct than another. He explains that our moral judgments are simply “...a compromise based on implicit bargaining between agents” (81). By this, he means that these agents or persons come to an agreement on what they deem to be morally acceptable within their group. For an entire group to have a morality with such principles, involves its members to be motivated to abide by the requirements, to agree to …show more content…
Similarly, If the bulk of England decides that bullfighting is morally incorrect, then for that culture it is likely so. There is an agreement in this group in their intention, which Harman deems to be the motivational state in determining the morality of an action. There might be some individuals in the group of England or even in a different group, such as the United States, that do not share the notion that bullfighting is morally right, but the bulk of the audience in England has decided it so, therefore for them it is acceptable. Russell seems to argue that despite what Harman has established, if an individual desires not to allow bullfighting, this is their individual moral truth. In response to Russell, Harman would proclaim that although there is no single true morality, the determinant of morality is relative to the agents in each particular culture. Harman would argue that nobody is objectively right or wrong but they ought to tolerate the behavior of others based on the shared intentions of the whole. Through Harman’s conclusion we can see that Russell may be correct to oppose bullfighting and this is right for his morality - but the ultimate moral truth of the society depends on the shared agreement made by the majority. In
Instead he believes that there are actually many varying moralities, just as there is not a single true language but many different ones. In this essay I will explain that despite the notion that different individuals in a given group have varying definitions of behavioral morals, it is their shared intentions as a group that ultimately determine how they understand and act out moral judgments. We will consider this notion in response to the morality of bullfighting in England.
In regard to moral relativism, the position that moral judgements are not universal but relative to persons within a group, Harman states that there is no way to objectively show that one moral is more correct than another. He explains that our moral judgments are simply “...a compromise based on implicit bargaining between agents” (81). By this, he means that these agents or persons come to an agreement on what they deem to be morally acceptable within their group. For an entire group to have a morality with such principles, involves its members to be motivated to abide by the requirements, to agree to …show more content…
Similarly, If the bulk of England decides that bullfighting is morally incorrect, then for that culture it is likely so. There is an agreement in this group in their intention, which Harman deems to be the motivational state in determining the morality of an action. There might be some individuals in the group of England or even in a different group, such as the United States, that do not share the notion that bullfighting is morally right, but the bulk of the audience in England has decided it so, therefore for them it is acceptable. Russell seems to argue that despite what Harman has established, if an individual desires not to allow bullfighting, this is their individual moral truth. In response to Russell, Harman would proclaim that although there is no single true morality, the determinant of morality is relative to the agents in each particular culture. Harman would argue that nobody is objectively right or wrong but they ought to tolerate the behavior of others based on the shared intentions of the whole. Through Harman’s conclusion we can see that Russell may be correct to oppose bullfighting and this is right for his morality - but the ultimate moral truth of the society depends on the shared agreement made by the majority. In