Those objectively true moral standards make it possible for a persons moral

Those objectively true moral standards make it

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 10 pages.

Those objectively true moral standards make it possible for a person’s moral beliefs to become more or less accurate, for a society’s moral beliefs to become more or less accurate, and for a person or society to become morally better or worse. Arbitrariness: >Subjectivism makes morality purely a matter of personal taste, which can be entirely arbitrary (random, baseless, groundless, unsupported by reasons). >Relativism makes morality purely a matter of societal taste, which can be entirely arbitrary. >If Nihilism is true, no moral judgment is any more based on moral truth than any other, since there’s no such thing as moral truth (according to Nihilism); so “Because it’s true” can never be a reason for accepting a moral judgment. >But: If Objectivism is true, there are objectively correct moral standards, “and people who embrace them are not thinking…in an arbitrary way” [60]; instead, their beliefs reflect objective moral truths. Contradiction:
Image of page 2
>Subjectivism generates contradictions because individuals disagree about morality. >Relativism generates contradictions because societies disagree about morality. >Nihilism avoids this problem, because it says that no moral judgment can be true ; so no moral judgment can be both true and false. But there’s a high price in accepting this theory: no one can ever utter a moral truth , since there are no moral truths (according to Nihilism). >But: Objectivism avoids the problem of contradiction because it says moral truth doesn’t depend on personal/societal beliefs; the fact that people disagree about morality doesn’t generate contradictions, because their beliefs don’t determine what the moral truth is. “An independent, objective standard of [moral] truth saves us from contradiction” [61]. Relativism and Contradiction: >Relativism has an extra problem with contradictions, because: (i) Relativism says that an action’s moral status is determined by the culture (society) it’s performed in, (ii) an action might be performed in more than one culture at the same time, and (iii) those cultures might disagree about the action’s moral status. When that happens, Relativism must say that the action is both right and wrong—a contradiction. >But: Objectivism avoids this problem entirely by not making moral truth depend on the (possibly incompatible) beliefs of different cultures. THE REMAINING SECTIONS OF THIS STUDY SHEET PRESENT AND CRITICIZE THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS AGAINST OBJECTIVISM: THE ARGUMENT FROM… (2) U NIVERSALITY (3) A BSOLUTISM (4) D ISAGREEMENT (5) A THEISM (6) O CCAM’S RAZOR (Think of a phrase using these letters: UADAO.) QUESTION: Why, you might be wondering, is Shafer-Landau, an Objectivist, discussing anti -Objectivist arguments? Because to defend your position on a topic properly, you must consider what the critics of your view say against it (i.e., their objections). Perhaps they have conclusive objections against your view. To defend your view thoroughly, you need to show that their objections fail. So, on to the first argument against Objectivism:
Image of page 3
(2) THE ARGUMENT FROM UNIVERSALITY (see Ch. 13 of text) (Premise) An
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 10 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • Wade Singletary

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture