Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Assess the case against Moral Elitism Essay
Moral Elitist view in a metaphysical take in there be virtuous situations and an epistemic claim we have coming to them. fit in to object lesson relativism, there argon no object lesson principles or values objectively real and applicable to every superstar rather, whats remediate/ pervert and good/bad essentially depends on single preference or culture, and this varies from person to person or group to group. There is non on the merelyton champion moral fact nevertheless now instead there ar millions and we access them be research. There are two different forms of moral elitism unity is heathen relativism which based on societies and the other is in the laissez-faire(a) form, moral subjectivism.Moral relativism seems tolerant (you do your thing and Ill do mine), only if is it reasonable to believe? We should think not. First, permits look at it in its group or cultural form, cultural relativism. According to cultural relativism, ethics essentially depend on ones culture or tribe. That is, CR says action X is right or good if the order of magnitude says X is right or good, and X is wrong or bad if the gild says X is wrong or bad. Action X may be right in one culture but wrong in another.Our culture may study that apartheid is wrong, but another culture may be okay with apartheid, because of a difference in the history of interracial relations. On cultural relativism, then, pietism is wholly a matter of cultural invention, i.e. social construction and because such circumstances vary from group to group, so do the constructed moralities. Thus, we shouldnt impose our cultures moral values on others, and others shouldnt press theirs on us. There are no better or worse societies, they are just merely different and so one society great dealnot try another. Instead we should be non judgemental and celebrate diversity. heathen relativism intemperates good, but is it sound? Lets assume that cultural relativism is true, this would be v ery taskatic. The biggest problem for this argument is put forward by G.E Moores Open Question. He suggests that the relativists have mis-defined morality, it makes to sense to ask whether society approve of something or it, but does this make it automatically good? This ends up giving support to patently evil regimes and evil cultural practices. For example it becomes impossible to criticize the Nazis. If Nazi culture says that genocide is right, then, for Nazi Germany, genocide is right. It was just their culture, after all. but we know that we domiciliate and should condemn such regimes and practices.There is also the comment put forward by Objectivists who believe in moral development, where sometimes we have to go against the popular view, we need to be able to analyze different societies. For example surely the German society now is often better than how it was wish well with all the racism involved when Hitler was in power. Objectivists believe that societies are a h ierarchy where some are in fact better than others whereas cultural relativism believes in breadth where all societies are equal, but surely their tolerance goes too far? If cultural relativism is true, then interior(a) cultural reform is disabled. What the culture says is right is right, so its not possible for ones culture to be mistaken let alone reformed. Yes, one can critique acts according to cultural standards, but its not possible to criticize ones testify cultural standards.However they do arise for example Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, they were all stressful to have got another standard for example Martin Luther King was trying to apply the standard of equality. The existence of cultural reformers is a fact, and this fact counts against cultural relativism. Cultural relativism also self-refutes. If CR is true, it allows for the possibility of a society having a non-relative or absolute morality. That is, on cultural relativism a society could hold that cultural relativism is false, and they would say that this morality is true. So, if cultural relativism, then it is also not true. This is a serious logical problem. There is also the problem of which culture? The one youre born into or the one you presently occupy? When postulation someone what cultural groups they belong in they bequeath struggle as they have loads, for example being a student, a Muslim etceteraNow lets look at moral subjectivism. According to moral subjectivism ethics are merely a matter of individual preference. That is, to say action X is right or good if I like X, and X is wrong or bad if I gaint like X. Depending on our feelings, action X may be right for you but wrong for me. You may not like abortion, but I may be okay with abortion, if my feelings are not as troubled by it as yours are. Morality, then, is basically a matter of taste, and tastes vary. flock should choose our own morals and have freedom, not simply just accept our parents, society or religion. They are relative to the individual and so are presented through our personal feelings. Feelings are the main index and hunt down to show what morals we should follow.However this could result in problems as intra-personal reprimand is lost. If moral subjectivism is true, whatever we feel is right is right. In other words, we can never be wrong chastely and we cannot criticize ourselves (all we can be is true to our feelings). This does not destroy subjectivism but it serves as a crimson flag against IR, because our pre-theoretic experience of morality is that we sometimes make moral mistakes, in spite of our feelings. We also cannot criticize others. We cant truly morally condemn the behaviour of, say, Jack the Ripper clearly liked killing women the feelings of a person justified their actions.In other words, according to subjectivism Who are we to judge them? There is also the problem of how are our feeling a tried and true guide to right and wrong? Sometimes we can misjudge and feelings can cloud our judgement, for example someone with a bad temper cleverness kill someone by accident due to their anger issues. to a fault reason can sometimes change our feelings, for example if I am on a diet but I feel like I really want a chocolate ice cream, reason out about this would convince me not to follow my feelings and opt to eat something rock-loving instead.In conclusion we have seen the two types of moral elitism. Both are quite sophisticated and a lot more open minded. sure our feelings mater sometimes when it comes to moral decisions. There cannot be just check moral facts as how would everyone even agree about what they are. When trying to nail down what is right and wrong, everyone seems to disagree so surely our feelings and following our own society would lead to our moral decisions.However many problems arise logically from moral elitism as sometimes we cannot choose our own morals instead we are a passive recipient where morals impose themsel ves on us. succeeding(a) our society or feelings do not necessarily lead us to what is right or wrong and so its reasonable to pause that individual moral relativism is flawedlogically, factually, and morally as following it will lead to wrong situations where wrong things will be condoned. Therefore moral elitism should be rejected.