333
03-28-2007, 07:15 AM
Peace,
Morality
The Declaration of Independence asserts that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are supposed to apply to all people no matter what society they live in. Many Americans today, however, would no longer agree that there are such universal rights.
In their view, morality is relative to individuals, to cultures, or to religions.
Subjective Absolutism
The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.
According to this view, morality is a matter of personal preference. When we say that an action is right, we are merely saying that we approve of it. Although this view may help explain the plethora of moral opinions, it can not possible be correct because it leads to a logical contradiction.
Subjective Relativism
The doctrine that what makes an action right for some one is that it is approved by that person-- claims that moral judgments are always relative to the individual.
When ever someone says an action is right, what she means is that it is right for her. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, just as nothing is absolutely big or small. To understand a moral judgment, then, you have to know who made it.
Although subjective relativism may seem admirably egalitarian in that it considers everyone's moral judgments to be as good as everyone else's it has some rather bizzare consequences. For one thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible.
Emotivism
The doctrine that moral utterances are expression of emotions.
In defense of the notion that morality is subjective some have gone as far as to claim that moral utterances are neither true or false. Some things we say do not have a truth value.
Consider these utterances, Hooray!, Bravo!, Boo!, Hiss!.
These are exclamations rather than statements. They serve to express emotions rather than to make claims. As a result, none of them is true or false.
According to Emotivism, all moral utterances (utterances that use the term "right" and "wrong") are expression of emotion. If we say, for example, that abortion is right, what we are saying, in effect, is "Abortion Hooray!" Moral discourse is more than just cheering and jeering, however. It follows, then that emotivism can not be correct. Words like "good" and "bad" do not stand for properties or features of anything.
Cultural Relativism
The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it is approved by one's culture.
Unlike subjective relativism, cultural relativism does not imply that individuals are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally infallible. Cultures make moral law, so cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.
Morality
The Declaration of Independence asserts that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are supposed to apply to all people no matter what society they live in. Many Americans today, however, would no longer agree that there are such universal rights.
In their view, morality is relative to individuals, to cultures, or to religions.
Subjective Absolutism
The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.
According to this view, morality is a matter of personal preference. When we say that an action is right, we are merely saying that we approve of it. Although this view may help explain the plethora of moral opinions, it can not possible be correct because it leads to a logical contradiction.
Subjective Relativism
The doctrine that what makes an action right for some one is that it is approved by that person-- claims that moral judgments are always relative to the individual.
When ever someone says an action is right, what she means is that it is right for her. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, just as nothing is absolutely big or small. To understand a moral judgment, then, you have to know who made it.
Although subjective relativism may seem admirably egalitarian in that it considers everyone's moral judgments to be as good as everyone else's it has some rather bizzare consequences. For one thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible.
Emotivism
The doctrine that moral utterances are expression of emotions.
In defense of the notion that morality is subjective some have gone as far as to claim that moral utterances are neither true or false. Some things we say do not have a truth value.
Consider these utterances, Hooray!, Bravo!, Boo!, Hiss!.
These are exclamations rather than statements. They serve to express emotions rather than to make claims. As a result, none of them is true or false.
According to Emotivism, all moral utterances (utterances that use the term "right" and "wrong") are expression of emotion. If we say, for example, that abortion is right, what we are saying, in effect, is "Abortion Hooray!" Moral discourse is more than just cheering and jeering, however. It follows, then that emotivism can not be correct. Words like "good" and "bad" do not stand for properties or features of anything.
Cultural Relativism
The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it is approved by one's culture.
Unlike subjective relativism, cultural relativism does not imply that individuals are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally infallible. Cultures make moral law, so cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.