prove them, both parts of the statement reveal the answer. B) Empirical statements —statements that need and can be verified with evidence: such as “There was 10 ft of snow in Michigan” such statement can be verified with testing and proven factual or denied. But for the subjectivists, Moral Judgments, when I say “stealing is wrong” or you “ought to obey” fall into neither category . 1) Stealing is wrong or abortion is right or euthanasia is wrong are not analytic statements, the statements do not give the answer immediately. 2) And yet, they are neither, empirical statements. You can’t go and verify moral judgment like you do judgments of fact such as weather recording or birthrate recording or chemical compound reactions that all are open to verification. 3) Because it is neither analytic or empirical for subjectivists, my moral judgments are bound up and reflect my personal sentiment/ feelings. Objectivist Critique- But for the Objectivists- this cannot be, there must be an independent, objective sense to Moral judgments in order for there to be morality . 1) For Moral statements to mean the same as personal feelings means there is no “Good” but only what is thought good, there is not “evil” but what is opined as evil, there is no truth but what is felt as truth. 2) All Judgments are “Right” nothing is “wrong”- Without a real and independent sense of good, evil, truth distinct from man, all judgments would be right nothing could be false, 3) There would be no continuity to existence because nothing could ever mean the same. On two different occasions I could like at an object , say a painting one day hate it and one day love it, a. There would be no independent meaning to things such as the painting only the meaning I assign it. b. And furthermore, when I leave the room does the painting cease to have meaning, since it has no value outside my opinion, is it only at those moments when I confer opinion or moral judgment on it does a thing have meaning? 4) There would be no ability to rationally defend truth because truth would be a matter of personal opinion, a. how then do we condemn Hilter’s actions if he was acting on his moral judgment that he liked, and found “good” for him. 26 | P a g e
b. How could it be gauged as The wrong, or The evil response to the Jews if there is no objective truth, right, good outside and independent of moral feeling? The Problem: But then again where is that universal/objective, independent sense of “right” or “wrong” “good” or “evil” where are those objective moral categories outside and independent of personal moral judgment? They don’t seem to exist, they can’t be verified, they have never been fully acknowledged, recognized or set in stone. And really, when I make a judgment isn’t it me speaking my opinion, my feeling?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 84 pages?
- Fall '19