In this paper I plan to argue against Moore’s beliefs of moral intuition. I will show that while there may be something that is moral intuition, it is not a set of standards that can be directly applied to every single person. I will show how there are difference scenarios and situations that one must take into account before making and argument using moral intuition.
The first argument that I will bring up is that of cultural relativism. It is widely accepted that different cultures, whether that be as simply as regional or global, have different ways of viewing life. While one culture may find one thing to be socially acceptable another may find the same to be completely taboo.
To begin this argument I would like to cite the works of Richmond Campbell in “Moral Epistemology”(Campbell 2003.) In this he states that “Moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social group in which moral sensibility is formed with the result that no moral truths are known to hold universally.” While it may be fair to judge someone of your own culture off of your moral intuition, the statement above shows that you cannot equally transfer this moral judgment to another culture. Campbell uses the argument of a woman wearing a veil over her face. He says that while in one culture this may be morally wrong, in another there is nothing wrong with it. (Campbell 2003.) Through the eyes of your average American this would seem morally wrong. By doing this you are shaming a woman, or hiding her from the world. But, you must look at this through the context of the culture. In the countries that this ideology originated there is nothing wrong with a woman covering the majority of her body. In these cultures women tend to be much more mode...
... middle of paper ...
...n (Alexander.)
Following the logic above you can gain, oddly enough, that following moral intuitions, is actually morally wrong. I say this because leaning on moral intuition alone goes against both beneficence and self-improvement in regards to prima facie duties.
Works Cited
Campbell, R. (2003, February 4). Moral Epistemology. Stanford University. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/
Intuitionism. (n.d.). Intuitionism. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SzCMT/intuit.html
Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. (2009, January 1). The "Unreliability" of Epistemic Intuitions . . Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/academics/schools_and_departments/school_of_liberal_arts/philosophy/Alexander%20&%20Weinberg.The%20Unreliability%20of%20Epistemic%20Intuitions.pdf
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Philosophers attempt to answer arduous questions about the morality of certain actions if they were to be performed by justifying whether different theories can be applied to certain situations. In the text, Moral Theory: An Introduction, the case of Jim is a hypothetical situation that questions the morality of one’s actions that can be rationalized by two theories, classical act utilitarianism and rule consequentialism.
14 One might think that the standard cognitive view of moral judgments evades the burden of
Joshua Greene is the author of the article The Secret Joke of Kant’s Sou. He uses support to identify that consequentialism and deontology are “two different ways of moral thinking” (Greene). Greene clarifies that people’s moral intuitions and judgments are simply rationales for human decision-making. Greene states, “We decide what’s right or wrong on the basis of emotionally driven intuitions, and then, if necessary, we make up reasons to explain and justify our judgm...
This paper functions as a brief introduction to virtue epistemology, a topic that has enjoyed a recent gain in popularity among analytic philosophers. Here I maintain that the defining feature of virtue epistemology is its focus on the intellectual virtues and vices rather than the evaluation of belief. What constitutes such a focus? And, what are the intellectual virtues? In the first section, I enumerate five different ways in which virtue epistemologists might focus on the virtues. In the second, I discuss four topics pertaining to the nature of the intellectual virtues themselves: (1) are the virtues natural or acquired?; (2) are they skills?; (3) are they instrumentally, constitutively, or intrinsically valuable?; and (4) what relation do they bear to truth? Throughout the paper, I identify which virtue epistemologists are partial to which views, and in this manner, catalog much of the recent debate. In conclusion, I suggest some topics for future study.
Before diving into Johnathan Haidt’s, The Righteous Mind, I was curious about how he would explain the dividing factor that seems to split different religious and political groups. Even after just reading the first part in this book, I gained a new perspective on how we make decisions and knowledge on some of the factors that can play an influential role in the decision-making process that might set us apart from others. Specifically, this reading has made me rethink my definition of moral reasoning, led me to understand how we may have no initial justification to our thoughts and actions, and how we may benefit from understanding moral reasoning.
Moral realism makes it conceivable to relate rules of reason to arbitrate moral statements. Thus, a moral conviction can be labeled as untrue or conflicting similar to truthful beliefs. Moral realism shines when there are moral discrepancies about the integrity of particular moral views. Moral realism considers that if two theories are opposing then clearly only one of them is true, and therefore the attention should be on looking for the factual moral belief. A moral realist is of the assessment that, amid all the facts, there is one moral fact which is significant and cannot be put on the back burner. According to moral realism, moral declarations are on occasion right. The influential element is the presence of a truth-making relation which brands the moral proclamations true. Accordingly, the things that create the truth of moral statements must actually be. For instance, a moral declaration such as “Cheating is bad” must be assessed in terms of its fact or falseness. It has to then be determined in terms of everyday associations established on its benefits and hindrances to an individual and the
Different cultural backgrounds have different taboos. These taboos define what is and is not acceptable for the people within that culture. Such as India where they do not believe in interracial marriages while in Western Europe most
“Moral imagination is the element that distinguishes good people who make ethically responsible decisions, from good people who do not,” according to Hartman & DesJardins (2013). Not just the obvious options with regard to a particular dilemma are considered, but also the more subtle ones that might not be evident at first. In the case of discovering a lost iPod, one person might decide to keep it because they decide that the chances of discovering the true owner are slim, and that if they don’t keep it, the next person to discover it will. Another alternative could be to return early for the next class to see who is sitting at the desk. Also, they could find out who the previous class teacher was and ask that teacher for help in identifying the owner. The most helpful way to evaluate the impact of each alternative is to place oneself in the other person’s
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Morality is relative to the norms of one 's culture ad actions can be considered right or wrong depending on the accepted norms of the society in which they are practiced. For example, Slavery may be considered acceptable in one society and unacceptable in another. Legal rights differ from state to state and caregivers must be aware of cultural, religious, and legal
My moral intuitions came from outside influences. These outside influences are family members, church, school and friends. My outside influences help me function my daily life. Clearly, my moral intuitions cannot be wrong or harmful. My family members influence my moral intuitions, and they taught me what I know. I was taught by them religion, moral beliefs, and virtues. In life, they explained to me, we have bad and good people. Obviously, to me a bad person is someone who has done wrong doing to their neighbor, did not treat others the way they wanted to be treated, and they lied, cheated, and stolen before, and a “good” person and “bad” person are opposites. A good person is honest, trustworthy, treat others the way they wanted to be tread,
Throughout the development of mankind, the topic of right versus wrong, good versus evil, and improper versus proper has been intensely discussed and debated. Within the realms of religion, morality becomes objective and easier to explain. However, outside of religious parameters, secular morality can vary dependent of the individual’s multifactorial background. As a result, many do not grasp that to understand the foundations of morals they must be studied carefully, as to recognize the vast genealogy behind them, and to gain knowledge of basic moral principles.
Furrow, Dwight. Ethics- Key Concepts In Philosophy. New York, NY: Continuum, 2005. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
The philosopher Gilbert Harman argues for skepticism about morality, claiming that moral observations are not reliable and shouldn’t be trusted since the is no good reason to believe otherwise. By holding this view there is then a lack of evidence for or against moral disagreement. I will argue that Harman’s argument is a good one. In this essay I will explain Harman’s argument, I will then propose objections to show how it might fail and argue why as to why the criticisms wouldn’t succeed.