The moral diversity argument for nonobjectivism - Essay Example

a. What is the moral diversity argument for nonobjectivism? How do moral objectivists attempt to answer it? Because of the diverse moral principlesand propositions, arguments on moral diversity, between objectivism and non-objectivism, is based on context and the cultural understanding of the principle and propositions. Different cultures and religions look at moral principles differently, based on their culture’s understanding of them. With this, it can be assumed that moral diversity is the differences in interpretation of morality. It does not mean though that these diverse principles would always be in contrast with each other. Some may actually be in support with each other. A particular moral diversity argument is the argument for non-objectivism, wherein non-objectivists claim that moral claims are relative and dependent on the beliefs of an individual or group. This is in contrast to a moral objectivist’s point of view wherein the truth and morality is independent of anyone’s judgment. Non-objectivism emphasizes the diversity between the belief systems of different cultures. Non-objectivism views moral diversity as real and possible since individuals and groups view moral principles and objectives differently. One truth can be the others false, depending on what culture is talking about it. Non-objectivism is concerned about particular views and dispositions of individuals rather than an absolute truth. It sees truth and morals as relative and subjective. Thus, moral diversity is in sync with the principles of non-objectivism. In contrast, objectivism views truth as absolute. There is only one truth, much like one teaching, similar as how Christianity’s Jesus teaches, that there is only One God. Moral objectivists see moral principles as independent of an individual or group’s interpretation of it. The truth and moral principles are right or wrong regardless of the belief of the person. Moral diversity can be interpreted in different ways through a non-objectivist point of view. Non-objectivism is divided into three basic types: moral subjectivism, cultural relativism and moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism explains that morality is relative to the individual’s beliefs and values. The truth and the moral proposition are dependent on the individual’s personal standards. For example, if he thinks cheating is wrong because it is his belief that cheating is wrong, then it becomes a subjective way of looking into one’s moral standards. Simply put, subjectivism means morality varies from person to person. In cultural relativism, the moral standards are not dependent of personal standards, it is dependent on the cultural norms and standards. It is based on what the society and culture thinks as right or wrong. For example, cannibalism may be wrong for one culture but it may be acceptable for another. Moral principles then can be considered as based on one’s way of living according to the culture and society’s set of standards. Moral nihilism, on the other hand, describes moral claims as nonsense or existing with a category mistake. This means that there is no real truth to moral claims since there is a mistake in placing a property, which is either being right or wrong, on them because it does not apply to them. Objectivists answer to this by explaining that the judgment on the goodness and the wrongness of beliefs and standards based on the idealization of life and the immediate responses of the people believing in them. For example, a society may believe in a monogamous relationship because the majority practice monogamy. All societies are seen to believe in a common belief, that is utilitarianism and universality, wherein people believe in a particular moral principle because they profit from it and because the majority believe in it (Gowans, 2002). b. What is A.J. Ayer’s key argument against ethical objectivism? Ayer’s key argument against ethical objectivism revolves around verification procedure. Herewith, Ayer explains that if moral claims were true or false, it should have an agreed procedure on which to verify its veracity (Ayer and Griffiths). The moral facts that objectivists state as right or wrong are not fact-stating because they have no real claim or standard procedure in which to verify the rightness of the wrongness of their claim. His claim, known as emotivism, actually stems from logical positivism, in which things that cannot be verified through logical analysis or sense experience is meaningless. Ethical symbols presented in a moral proposition add nothing to a proposition’s factual content since there is no logical verification that can confirm to its existence. As such, he questions the factual contents of ethical statements and rejected absolutism. He sees ethical statements as non-propositions and just mere expressions of disapproval. The rightness or the wrongness of a moral statement is based on the interpretation of the events. It is an expression, not even an assertion, of a belief or feeling. The inherent wrongness or rightness is a matter of degree, and this is based upon an individual’s (or a group’s) understanding or analysis of the moral proposition. Thus, a subjective response of the individual decides whether or not the moral proposition is right or wrong. Let’s take murder as an example. Say, for example, that the definition of murder as taking someone else’s life without their consent is taken into consideration. This definition will then categorize soldiers as murderers. If the definition is changed to an act going against an established social law, then murder becomes an act that is deemed wrong by law and social norms and not wrong in itself. This could mean that murder becomes wrong only because there is a law against it but if there is no law in place then it would not be wrong. The wrongness of the act, then, depends on how an individual, or a group, sees it. It now depends on the degree of the act instead of being wrong in itself no matter what the situation is. Thus, the statement, murder is wrong, has no objective validity. c. Moral realists maintain that finding moral facts is not a simple matter like finding a new species of beetle or a new comet. Describe the more complicated process involved in the search for objective moral facts, according to the moral realist view. Moral realism accept that there are moral facts and these facts are logically independent of evidence. For moral realists, moral facts are objective, factual and discoverable. An accumulation of evidences is needed to make moral discoveries. And so this makes moral facts real. However, moral facts must be independent of the evidence that gives meaning to them. The moral claim must have a truth-value. They are based on basic ethical facts in which nothing external gives grounds to their existence. The explanation of moral realists is based on explaining away the failure of convergence. This means that an explanation of a moral claim must coincide with objectivism and resolution. Thus, moral claims are independent of subjective grounds or opinions. Regardless whether the evidence is known or not yet known, the moral claim still stands. The key in determining a moral fact is determining whether the moral claim can stand on its own whether or not the evidences of its reality and existence, and its truthfulness, is known. It does not need the evidence for it to be categorized as a moral fact. The evidence just strengthens the truthfulness of the moral fact. In searching for objective moral facts, canons of moral reasoning and canons of scientific and factual reasoning go hand-in-hand in obtaining and improving (once accumulation of moral facts are obtained) moral knowledge. In this manner, there is a process of validation from the truth-value of the moral fact itself along with the reasoning and the grounds of saying that a moral proposition is indeed a moral fact. Moral facts are real in the sense that it has a value in itself, it can stand on its own whether or not the evidence of its reality is known. Moral realists look at moral facts as true or false whether or not the claims supporting it can actually support or negate it. Also, moral facts should be an effective model for understanding and improving moral knowledge. d. Moral realists do not suppose that we have reached consensus on our moral views, or that we have found convergence in our desires, but they still think it could occur, under the right circumstances. Describe the circumstances they regard as most favorable for development of such consensus. Moral realism relies on the truth-value of moral fact and its independence against the evidences that proves its truthfulness of reality. With this, it can be described that the consensus that moral realism looks for is the convergence of all principles and moral facts. Since moral fact can stand on its own but is strengthened by the discovery of the evidences that claims its truthfulness and existence, moral consensus can be reached in the acceptance of the moral facts, creating moral knowledge that is independent of the evidences that proves of its existence and truthfulness. Also, when the fundamental moral principles become accepted as self-evident and accepted as analytic truths, then a widespread moral consensus can be reached. When there is a belief in a monolithic ethical theory, then moral consensus is possible. Taking a realist stance, in which the social and environmental conditions produce diverse moral theories, would make it possible for a moral consensus. This is through acceptance that an ethical standard is universally held, independent of the evidences that prove its existence. By rejecting the subjective, dependent view of evidences proving the existence and truthfulness of a moral fact, and by accepting that morality cannot and will not be able to adhere to a single ethical theory because of moral diversity, then the possibility of consensus has a great chance of happening. Although different ethical principles disagree with one another, convergence happens through application, and through this consensus will be achieved. Moral consensus is not merely adhering to just one ethical or moral principle. It is allowing to see the different moral facts acting together to understand the moral knowledge. As such, discovering of moral facts with truth-value of its own and the convergence of these moral facts will lead to understanding a larger moral fact or knowledge. And in the end, it will result to a moral consensus wherein there is understanding rather than disagreement among different moral theories and principles. Works Cited Ayer, A. and Griffith, A. (1991). A.J. Ayer Memorial Essays: Memorial Essays. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Gowans, C. ed. (2002). Moral Disagreements: Classic and Contemporary Readings. NY:Routledge. Read More