The Minimum Conception of Morality - Free Essay

This refers to the endeavor to guide the conduct of an individual to do the best they can while at the same time being fair to the interests of each person who may be impacted by the actions of another individual (Rachels 14). The support that can be given for this is the notion of any one individual's desire to be a thorough moral agent. This is an individual who equally cares for the interest of others that may be affected by the actions this one person does (Rachels 15). A person that examines facts and inspects their inferences, is an individual who cares to listen to their inner self no matter how connected it is to their former beliefs (Rachels 15). The minimum conception of morality is also supported by the fact many theories revolving around morality in one way or another, integrate the minimum conception (Rachels 15).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Cultural Relativism

In a nutshell, the problem with cultural relativism is that it does not agree with any kind of universal truth. Universal truths are referred to as myths in ethics. Each and every culture has a distinctive moral truth. A person born in the 21st century who grew up in New York City with parents that are fashion icons, living in a world run by money, will have completely

different ethical codes/values compared to, say, a person that was born and raised all their life on an island with no currency, or even any social structures that remotely resemble the 21st century. An island that the world does not even know exists. How can these two people agree on anything? They would not be in a position of conversing in the same language. Different societies exist together with their customs, which cannot be defined in terms of wrong or right. This so because that would mean that there would be a sovereign standard of right and wrong, which can be used to judge these traditions (Rachels 18).However, one's standards depend solely on one's culture. It is argued for in consideration of any one person's ancestors. The "right" way for any one person should have been passed on to them by a parent. For their parents to pass it on, it must have been taught by a higher family lineage.

What is 'traditional' is what is 'right.' Nevertheless, if you look at the human race as one, instead of many different races based on culture, religion, among others, one can identify an apparent flaw in this argument. If Greek ancestors believed it was acceptable to eat the dead, but Collation ancestors believed that it was immoral, then even one's ancestors/traditions cannot be "right." At this point, the idea of eating dead bodies wouldn't be an argument of what is right and what is wrong, but just a subject of opinion which is different from one culture to another (Rachels 19).

Subjectivism

The fundamental thought behind Subjectivism is individuals have various sentiments, yet where profound quality is worried, there are no "realities," and nobody is "correct." People simply have an unexpected feeling, and that is its finish (Rachels 33). Then again, basic Subjectivism is somewhat unique. Basic Subjectivism is the point at which an individual says that something is ethically positive or negative; this implies they favor that particular thing or object to it, and that's it (Rachels 34). There are a couple of issues with this thought. One protest expresses that basic Subjectivism cannot represent our unsteadiness. Nobody on this planet is unequipped for committing errors. There are times that individuals finding that they are incorrect, and they need to push ahead and divert their recognition. In any case, if basic Subjectivism were right, this would be incomprehensible, doubtlessly because straightforward Subjectivism suggests that every one of us would be dependable (Rachels 35).

More still, a mere subjectivism should not lead to divergent opinions. Should I assert that making animals fight each other in cage matches is immoral, I will just but justifying my assertiveness. Robert, a person who enjoys watching animals fight to the death, would agree that I do not approve of animal-cage fighting. Upon agreeing that it is not immoral for animals to fight in a cage, Robert is just but saying that he does not condemn it. Therefore, as per the modest Subjectivism, no disagreement exists between us, we ought to admit the fact that emanates from what another person is passing across (Rachels 36).

Emotivism differs from Subjectivism because one of emotivism's vital uses is stating facts. An example would be to say, "Donald Trump is president" or "Lamborghini's are more expensive than Nissan's." In both cases, what is being stated can be right or wrong? Emotivism remarks have the purpose of conveying information to the listener (Rachels 36). Emotivism avoids the difficulties facing Subjectivism simply for the fact that some statements can neither be true or false. "WOO!! THE WEEKND!" or "DAMN USHER!" can neither be true or false. It does not make sense. This avoids any "rights" or "wrongs" that Subjectivism desires.

However, emotivism is flawed.

This theory minimizes the significance of moral terms. Using the example I gave earlier about the "woo" and the "damn," if morality is an utterance of personal feelings, then it would seem that one's disapproval for say, abortion, is on the same level as one's disapproval of stubbing their toe (Rachels 38). A social scale for discussion is non-existent, which, in turn, diminishes the serious ethical debates that have occurred throughout civilization. An example of this is events such as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They aren't Subjectivism, and so convey absolutely no truth (Rachels 39). Consequently, they could be rendered incoherent.

Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory

The Divine Command Theory or DCT states that "morally right" means "commanded by god" and "morally wrong" means "forbidden by god" (Rachels 50.) This is, of course, concerning every religion where there is a divine lawgiver that followers refer to as "god." This theory is supported for many reasons, one being that it solves the conflict about the impartiality of ethics. Something being "right" or "wrong" is perfectly objective. In most world religions, something is "right" if god commands it, and something is "wrong" if god forbids it (Rachels 50). This theory even suggests an answer to why anyone man or woman should even bother with morality. If one is a follower of, say, Christianity, then this person living an immoral life will be held accountable on his/her day of reckoning.

In every theory, there lie difficulties. With the DCT, there lies a conflict when atheists are involved. They do not believe that a "god" figure exists. There would be no "laws from above" for them to follow since they do not believe there is any all-powerful being above them, governing their every move. However, people that follow any religion with a god will see that there are some exceptional advantages regarding this theory. One is that this theory is ideal and unbiased. One's "god" would be considered the dawn and governor of morality. Many could contend that no better way to endure deciding what is wrong or right than a particular god's perpetual law. Out of this, if one is a faithful follower of their religion, this person may live with peace of mind forever, because they would believe they are doing the "right" thing and that they are a "good" person.

Another advantage would be the removal of human authority. Human acumen is fallible, and so one following their god's law safeguards against their misapprehension of circumstances. Along with these advantages come a few disadvantages. One must have a belief in a god for this theory to work. Going back to the example about atheists, one cannot accept the guidance of an entity they do not even believe is real. Religious pluralism is another drawback. To identify the right rules, Hinduism rules, including Ahimsa, and so consume only vegetable meals, while Leviticus educates on eating (some forms) of meat (Rachels 52).

The Theory of Natural Law has been there for long in ethics as per the Christian thought history. One of the three main parts of this theory is the view that everything in nature has a purpose. Trees have the purpose of producing essentials of life, such as food and oxygen. The second part of this theory is the perspective that the natural law both defines the nature of things, as well as specifies how such things should be (Rachels 55). Eyes are naturally supposed to see. Ears are naturally supposed to hear. If the said things fail to attend to their natural purpose, these senses have become defective, and are referred to as "unnatural." What is the purpose of eyes that are blind? What is the purpose of ears that cannot experience hearing?

The third and final part of this theory addresses, "how are we to go about determining what is right and what is wrong?" This is a moral knowledge question (Rachels, 57). The Theory of Natural Law proposes that the "right" thing to indulge in is that whose action will not impact others negatively. This is different from the Divine Command Theory because one would not just be following a set of rules from their god. One would use their laws of reason. They can grasp these laws of reason or "natural laws" because, in most religions, god is considered the screenwriter of the natural order. "God" has made every man and woman a rational human being in a position to comprehend that order. Everything held constant; the natural law theory suggests that individuals hold an intrinsic sense of wrong and right, which controls how we reason and behave.

The theory of natural selection constitutes a criticism of the natural law theory in a few ways. Said by scientists and criticized by philosophers, natural selection is regarded as an occurrence through chance. "Occurrence through chance" makes the entire universe acquire a sense of no purpose, whereas the natural law establishes a purpose. The theory of natural selection essentially narrates what happens to us. Natural selection entails the chance and events that bring about biological changes. On the other hand, natural law bids us to use one's God-given freedom to attain their purpose. What natural selection fails to acknowledge is the disparate humanitarian activities that benefit the poor, the deprived, and the weak? This theory is not broad or evens a scientific theory. The theory of natural selection is simply unscientific and restricted. Human beings die by natural selection, but we live by natural law.

The logical difference Hume observed between sentences that contain the word "is" and the word "ought" is this: According to Hume, the statement containing 'is' is a form of a deductive argument and the statement containing 'ought,' being appraising in nature, is a form of inductive argument. Any attempt to deduce an 'is' statement from an 'ought' statement is similar to having a deductive argument from an inductive argument. Moreover, this difference constitutes a criticism of the natural law theory. This is because it begins with a brief analysis of the type of 'ought' principles backed by conventional natural law theorists. A least-problematic solution of natural law theorists will be if anyone man or woman desires to execute an 'ought' that is moral and related to the common good. To obtain an 'ought' conclusion from an 'is' assertion is possible, and asks whether attempts can be replicated successfully by those who wish to uphold the basic claims of the natural law theory (Rachels, 59).