UNIT III:THEORIES ON MORAL TRUTH

UNITIII: OBJECTIVES: After learning this material you will be able to:

1. Discuss the major features of non-cognitive and cognitive ethical theories.

2. Present the basic insight of ethical relativism and ethical objectivism
3 Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of ethical relativism and objectivism
4. Discuss other variants of cognitivist and non-cognitivist theories
5. Understand the importance of tolerance,respect and dialogue in meta-ethical
analysis

I. COGNITIVISM

A.MORAL OBJECTIVISM(REALISM)
• Objective truth discoverable by reason
• Independent of beliefs,sentiments attitudes and feelings
• Moral principles can override each other.
• Exceptions are permitted.
• Lying to save a life could be permissible
• Only one moral standard that holds universally regardless of their beliefs
• Applies only to moral claims, not social and cultural differences
• Allows for something to be wrong in one but right in another

A.1.MORAL ABSOLUTISM

• Some moral rules that are always true, can be discovered apply to everyone.
• Absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged,
• Certain actions are R/W regardless of the context of the act.-
• There is one correct solution to every moral problem.
• Objective-moral statements (T/F) independently of what people think or believe.
• No moral principle can be overridden by another.
• No exceptions are permitted.
• It would be wrong to lie, even to save a life.
• Cannot change according to person, society and culture
• Exist independent of human existence

PROS:

• Morality not based on individual or group preferences

• Allows societies to share common values
• Can judge the action of another
• Provides clear ethical guide

CONS

• Consequences are relevant to whether that act is good or bad

• Doesn't fit with respect for diversity and tradition
• Different cultures have had different attitudes to issues like war ©
• Does not take into account historical development/ cultural diversity
• Does not recognize evolutionary nature of man/Ignores circumstances
• Confuses what is absolute morals(open to interpretation)
 • Never get everyone to agree to a moral code/unfalsifiable
• Vary in terms of scope,application, gravity and sanction
ETHICAL NATURALISM
• Objective moral properties and we have empirical knowledge
• Non-reducible to non-ethical properties
• Meaning can be expressed as natural properties without using ethical terms
• Ethical and non-ethical statements are the same and is verifiable using evidence
• Goodness indefinable(pleasant) natural fallacy
PROS:
• What is natural is expressible
• Nature is universal/Morals can be universally known
CONS:

• Evidence to support that an act is right(euthanasia) it may still break the law
• R/W needs human to exist to determine how we should live
• If moral situation have evidence, which do we accept or ignore.

EMOTIVISM
• Moral statement doesn't provide info about the speaker's feelings but expresses those feelings.
• Moral claims expressions of approval or disapproval/"murder is wrong" " yecch!" thumbs-down
B.MORAL RELATIVISM(ANTI-REALISM)
• No objective.universal moral truth
• Ethically right vary from person, society ,history and culture
• One moral standard within a social group but different for different groups.

PROS
• Different societies differences in particular moral beliefs and practices.
• The moral standard determined by beliefs/practices are accepted within that society.
• Cannibalism and cremation different views of polygamy versus monogamy).
• Well meaning and reasonable people can differ in opinions about moral issues
• Different societal context need different guidelines
• Tolerance and respect of peoples’s culture. To coexist
• Practical for multicultural societies(mass migration)
• Rejects superiority of other’s norms than others
• Generates peaceful co-existence and harmony.
• Rejects imperialism (imposition of one’s culture)
• Selfishness of individual weakened by needs of the group
CONS
• Society’s moral beliefs and practices determine what is morally right or wrong
• What holds in the world doesn’t depend on what people believe(shape of earth).
• Majority never be mistaken about moral R/W. ( slavery accepted but wrong)
• There will be “Immoral Rebels”: If you do not follow the culture’s beliefs
• Whose culture is relevant? What culture as my own (Other subcultures?)
• If relativism were true, (slavery, genocide). could all be morally right.
Anything could be morally right, as long as society’s majority accepts it.
• Make no sense to talk about a society making moral progress
• Moral guidelines will vary in place and change overtime
• Arrogance for one to judge another
• Difficulty adapting to new guidelines
• Cant explain well how guidance evolved and varies
• No framework of reconciling cultures in conflict
• Most societies share certain core values
• Cannot persuade a more diverse audience
 • Rationalizes unethical behavior
• Fails to appreciate certain moral values as universal
• Differentiated culture does not mean no objective good(ex, murder)
• Culture is not the sole influencer of human life
• Moral problems are complex
• Culture is not tolerant but divides humanity
• Moral progress interferes to culture norms
• Statement all is relative is self contradictory as an absolute statement is false
• All are born with instinctive knowledge of R/W

ANALYSIS

• Differences over fundamental moral principles are not as widespread

• Though helpful as an explanation of other cultures, it does not justify them
• Moral rules have more to them than the general agreement of a group of people
• We can be good without conforming to all the rules of society
• Choice of social grouping as the foundation of ethics is bound to be arbitrary
• Doesn't provide any way to deal with moral differences between societies
• There can be different moral standards for different societies.
• These share the same objective moral core that holds for every society.
• Moral claims can differ produce the differences in moral standards.
• Societies have social consciences like a person can have a personal conscience.

B.1.SUBJECTIVISM
• Different moral standard for each depending on that person’s moral beliefs
• Morally wrong one /right for another/ No objective moral properties
• Any moral principle could differ from one person to anotherâ” (lying, murder).
• Differ in what their consciences demand, (violates his conscience)
• Each decide R/W himself/Truth is relative to the subject
• Moral statements dependent(beliefs,preferences,feelings,conventions of persons

ANALYSYS
• Against one of morality’s functions: to regulate how people relate interact
• Assume that the same important moral principles hold for everyone
• Morality is subjective depends on who makes the statement.

CONS
• If fundamental moral values not shared, morality would cease to function as morality.
• If whatever each individual believes is correct about morality is right, then she is right
• Hitler is right, every action done, as long as the person thought it was right, is right
• No definite moral standard ,depends on the group she belongs to.
• What you think is right and what you want not sharply drawn
• No moral distinctions between actions of different people

PRESCRIPTIVISM
• Moral statements do not express facts/ function as an imperative
• Can be univerzalizable(anyone in similar circumstances(killing is wrong)
• They are not true or false/They ex[press our will(wishes-imperatives)
• Prescriptions are universal(for us and for others)
• You ought” everyone should do the same in similar situations

EXPESSIVISM_
• Function of moral statement isnon-descriptive/Possess no truth value
 • Expresses evaluation of attitude toward the act

MORAL PLURALISM

• No single comprehensive ethical account but appealing to distinct moral foundations.

• Ross offers a set of distinct and morally basic duties
• Provide a unifying explanation of the moral phenomena within each category.
• Pluralism requires that each moral category be provided its own complete account.
• Ethical theorizing yield valuable ethical insights and understanding of morality.

TOLERANCE

• Requires respect other people’s moral beliefs even when they differ from our own.
• Requires that we respect other societies’ moral beliefs and practices.(relative)
• Thus, the value of tolerance requires that we accept relativism and reject objectivism.

ANALYSIS
• Granted: Tolerance is an important moral value.
• But tolerance doesn’t rule out disagreements between people in difference societies.
• Tolerance rules out one society seeking to destroy another because they disagree.
• Engage in dialogue that offers moral beliefs and practices defensible than another.
• Having reasons for judging different societies’ moral standards is not disrespectful
• The moral value of tolerance is better supported by objectivism than by relativism.

SUMMARY

• Don’t confuse subjectivism with relativism. Relativism rejects subjectivism;

• What people believe and what actually is right are two separate issues.
• Progress must aim toward some standard or goal that represents what is right.
• When people argue for tolerance, they have in mind a universal, principle of tolerance.