Universal Personality: The Idea Of Universal Morality

Morality involves what we ought to do regarding right and wrong and/or good and bad based on our values, virtues and principles (Gray, JW). Something is moral if it is the right thing to do or rational thing to do based on the facts presented in a situation. Objectivity is the state or quality of being true even outside of one’s individual biases, interpretations, and feelings (Wikipedia). Objective decisions are ones that are not based on personal feelings or opinions, but instead it is based on the circumstances and facts presented when considering a particular decision. I shall argue that morality that is case-by-case or situational can still be objective without universal or general rules.

According to Immanuel Kant, the idea of universal

The particularist and the generalist both think that the perfectly moral person is one who is aware of the moral reasons present in a situation. However, the particularist has a different view of what it means to be aware of these reasons. The particularist’s view is one that takes moral reasons to operate in the same way that other or more ordinary reasons of action function (Dancy, Jonathan). The particularist believes in variability. This means that the particularist doesn’t believe that we are required to apply our principles consistently or apply the same principle to similar cases. The generalist demands sameness and believes that the same considerations for action function case by case (Dancy,

Morality that is case-by-case or situational is a morality that is based off of the circumstances and moral facts of each individual situation rather than the same considerations for similar actions. Moral particularism supports my claim because it argues that the import of any consideration is context dependent, that exceptions can be found to any suggested principles, and that moral wisdom consists in the ability to include them under codified rules (Little, Margaret). When making a decision, a generalist is concerned with the good and bad that will come from an outcome. The generalist strives to always maximize happiness or goodness (Hursthouse, Rosalind). In order to maximize happiness, the generalist takes a situation and uses the same considerations for deciding whether or not one should perform an action case by case based on the goodness gained from the action. The particularist doesn’t agree that one should make the decision to maximize happiness. Alternatively, the particularist believes that it is okay not to maximize happiness. The particularist rejects that the generalist uses the same rule to give an answer resulting in consistency because of the generalist’s goal to maximize happiness. Instead, the particularist thinks that judgement is not about rules. For example, one can take a look at the moral whiz kid argument. The moral whiz kid