In this essay, I will object to Thomas Nagel’s view “The fact that morality is socially inculcated and that there is radical disagreement about it across cultures, over time, and even within cultures at a time is a poor reason to conclude that values have no objective reality” (CP, p. 60; Thomas Nagel, “Value” (Lecture II of “The Limits of Objectivity”)). Nagel claims the argument that we learn morality from those in our society which leads people to have different moral beliefs without a specific right or wrong moral belief is a bad argument.
Rorty’s argument talk about relativism...relativistic view of epistemic justification
Richard Rorty, a famous American Philosopher did not agree with Nagel’s argument. Instead of disagreeing with the
…show more content…
Rorty writes about how “bad people are no less rational, no less clear-headed, no more prejudiced than we good people who respect otherness. The bad people’s problem is rather, that they were not as lucky in the circumstances of their upbringing as we were” (CP, p. 83) Richard Rorty, “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality”). We should find those hateful hearted people and instead of treating them as if they are irrational we should treat them as if they have been deprived, because like Rorty wrote they have been deprived of a positive upbringing. Security (feeling confident in oneself despite having differences with others) and sympathy (care and concern given to you and you onto others in times of struggle) are two concrete things that are crucial to a positive upbringing. Security and sympathy go hand in. The security and sympathy one receives varies in every society and will drastically affect one’s constructed moral beliefs. No one’s set of moral beliefs can be right or wrong because everyone not only has their own specific moral beliefs but also everyone has rationality meaning they have the ability to make their own opinions with
In Ruth Benedict’s “Ethics are Relative”, she argues that because morals and values change with time and across culture, there can be no solid judgment for any action to be consistently deemed “right” or “wrong”, since the same action will be viewed differently when considered from different points of view. Benedict’s primary assertion is that the ethics seen as good or bad by modern cultures are not better to those found in primitive cultures, but are the values we have developed over time. “Most of the simpler cultures did not gain the wide currency of the one which, out of our experience, we identify with human nature, but this was for various historical reasons, and certainly not for any that gives us as its carriers a monopoly of social
conduct themselves distinctly. Evil and wicked people tends to hurt and harm others with no
The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on John Ludwig Mackie’s argument that all moral judgments are false considering they presuppose moral objectivity which is itself inaccurate. To do so, I shall explain Mackie’s reasoning as to why the belief that moral values are objective was founded, and clarify Mackie’s arguments for why such an idea is misleading. Furthermore, I shall demonstrate how John McDowell’s color analogy can successfully prove Mackie wrong. The argument of this essay will establish that Mackie is immune to the idea of moral objectivity for he finds it queer and unsupportive of the relativity shown throughout the world. However, Mackie fails to acknowledge that properties that are dependent on
This paper briefly looked at the structure of Nagel’s overall argument and then outlined and analyzed the part of his argument where it seems inconsistent.
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Andrew Sullivan suggests the origins of hate to be evolutionary in his article, “What’s So Bad about Hate?” If hate really is “hard wired,” then that would mean all of the hubbub about obliterating hate is just about as useless as trying to obliterate opposable thumbs. Sullivan’s statement carries so much meaning because it illustrates such a nasty concept with an air of tolerance that is rarely ever considered. He proposes that instead of fighting hate, we accept hate for what it is: an integral part of the human experience. Instead of fighting, we should focus our energy on tolerating hate, and through toleration we can achieve much more than we ever did by trying to combat our very nature.
In the novella Anthem, this can be seen building up in the main character, Equality. As the story progresses, you can see Equality 7-2521, harbour a growing hatred for his fellow brothers. When Equality goes to show his creation to the world council, they reject his idea and shun him, possibly generating that feeling of rage. After Equality gets his idea rejected, he seems to now show the malice that was pushed away all of his life spent in the Community. The novella Anthem shows us that even though hate is a bad emotion, keeping all of those negative feelings felt towards others locked away can expand them and make them even worse.
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields indi...
Part 1: Evaluate Richard Taylor's view that morality is a matter not of rational principles but of having your heart in the right place. Explore the pros and cons of such a view.
Throughout history, there have been many human beings who have been seen as either a hero or a villain. In their childhood, these people had obstacles that were in their way, causing each individual to either work harder or give up. People, however, must understand that each individual has potential in achieving their goals, but if one is mistreated or deceived due to jealousy, resentment, hatred, or ambition, it can lead to many catastrophic events. People who have pride and arrogance do not want to have equals, rather they want to see their victims suffer. These people have no difficulty in achieving their goals due to the fact that their victims have too innocent a nature to suspect the nefarious motives of their enemies.
Cultural Relativism and the Divine Command Theory both had a tough time explaining why culture and God had the rights to state what is considered moral behavior. Especially when you lay your trust on God to guide you on what is moral or not, you face dangerous risks because there is a possibility that God is just a make-believe person up in the sky. Hence, humans who follow God’s words can misinterpret his meanings and cause immoral behavior in society. On the other hand, Ethical Relativism appeals to an authority that is present on this in this world, society and cultures. Nevertheless, society and cultures should not be relied on to indicate moral and immoral behavior because it is questionable to believe that our actions become moral just for the reason that our culture or society accepts them as normal. Despite the differences between The Divine Command Theory and Cultural Relativism, they both are theories that just fall short of their
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.