Final Paper Assignment My purpose in this essay is to explain why I believe that morality is objective versus moral relativism, which ethical theory do I ratify and the reasons behind why I do, and express how I would respond to a stranger’s objection to that specific ethical theory.
Theory of Morality, also known as theory of the right, is concerned with identifying fundamental moral norms, rules, or principles in which actions are evaluated and may be deemed as right or wrong. In other words, this is explaining what you ought or ought not to do. Moral relativism is to say that there are no moral truths. However, that claim is in and of itself a moral objective claim. Moral relativism runs contrary to the widespread moral intuition that …show more content…
I believe that it is common sense to disagree with moral relativism solely on the fact that it accepts racism, genocide of groups, even murder, as justifiable as long as that is what the group values to be right or acceptable. Having the beliefs of a moral relativist, you could go so far as to say that a group or culture could decide that starting a nuclear war was morally just, and that we as people outside of that group could not criticize those people for their actions. If ethical relativism is to be completely true, there can be no common ground for resolving moral disputes or for reaching an agreement on moral matters between members of different cultures. When it comes to justifying moral relativism, there is no decision procedure that can demonstrate the objective truth or falsity of moral judgments. On the contrary, moral objectivism, also known as moral absolutism, encompasses ethical theories that support the objectivity of moral values and norms. If moral values and norms are objective, then they apply absolutely, without exception and universally to every human being at all times. …show more content…
One of those arguments could be how do we determine the morally praiseworthy traits of human nature such as the ones picked out such as, "goods pertaining to love, knowledge, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. These first goods themselves are good and they promote togetherness, and flourishing. So in response to such an argument of why to choose those traits, I believe that each of those traits present great values in a person. I would ask the person presenting this argument, why wouldn’t you choose such traits as these? To me it seems logical to want to promote beauty, to strive to protect life, and to desire to be knowledgeable. Another argument against natural law theory could be that people have interpreted nature differently, so is there any consistency of what is right and wrong? Since natural law is part of the nature of things, the knowledge of it is accessible to all men through reason. God may be the source of natural law, but like Aquinas states, God has inscribed his moral law in nature and in man. Meaning, there is no need for any further clarification outside of nature itself for the knowledge of what is morally right or
Theory of Morality, also known as theory of the right, is concerned with identifying fundamental moral norms, rules, or principles in which actions are evaluated and may be deemed as right or wrong. In other words, this is explaining what you ought or ought not to do. Moral relativism is to say that there are no moral truths. However, that claim is in and of itself a moral objective claim. Moral relativism runs contrary to the widespread moral intuition that …show more content…
I believe that it is common sense to disagree with moral relativism solely on the fact that it accepts racism, genocide of groups, even murder, as justifiable as long as that is what the group values to be right or acceptable. Having the beliefs of a moral relativist, you could go so far as to say that a group or culture could decide that starting a nuclear war was morally just, and that we as people outside of that group could not criticize those people for their actions. If ethical relativism is to be completely true, there can be no common ground for resolving moral disputes or for reaching an agreement on moral matters between members of different cultures. When it comes to justifying moral relativism, there is no decision procedure that can demonstrate the objective truth or falsity of moral judgments. On the contrary, moral objectivism, also known as moral absolutism, encompasses ethical theories that support the objectivity of moral values and norms. If moral values and norms are objective, then they apply absolutely, without exception and universally to every human being at all times. …show more content…
One of those arguments could be how do we determine the morally praiseworthy traits of human nature such as the ones picked out such as, "goods pertaining to love, knowledge, and to develop as healthy mature human beings”. These first goods themselves are good and they promote togetherness, and flourishing. So in response to such an argument of why to choose those traits, I believe that each of those traits present great values in a person. I would ask the person presenting this argument, why wouldn’t you choose such traits as these? To me it seems logical to want to promote beauty, to strive to protect life, and to desire to be knowledgeable. Another argument against natural law theory could be that people have interpreted nature differently, so is there any consistency of what is right and wrong? Since natural law is part of the nature of things, the knowledge of it is accessible to all men through reason. God may be the source of natural law, but like Aquinas states, God has inscribed his moral law in nature and in man. Meaning, there is no need for any further clarification outside of nature itself for the knowledge of what is morally right or