Ethical Language Is Subjective - Essay by Andyjpj
Metaethical versions of moral relativism are often motivated by thethought that ethical positions, unlike scientific beliefs, are not aptfor objective truth-evaluation. Strong realists about science such asGilbert Harman have argued that the intractability of moraldisagreements, the absence of convergence in ethics as opposed to thenatural sciences and mathematics, point to fundamental differencesbetween natural facts and ethical values (Harman & Thompson1996). This is a metaethical, rather than a descriptive or normativeposition, because it is a theory about the nature of ethics ormorality. The ethical domain, Harman argue, is such that all relevantevaluations could be undertaken only in the context of social norms orpersonal preferences and commitments. Values are notobjective—they are not part of the fabric of theuniverse. Rather they always arise from some form of convention andagreement among people. Therefore, there can be no objective orexternally justified ethical knowledge or judgment (Harman 1975). Inthis sense, metaethical relativism shares common concerns withnon-cognitivist approaches to ethics. What distinguishes it, however,is the insistence on the part of metaethical relativists that moraljudgments contain an implicit relativization to the speaker’smoral outlook (Dreier 2006: 261). It is possible to talk about thetruth or falsity of a moral judgment but only in the context ofpre-existing standards or value systems. For instance, we can askquestions about just actions or judgments in the context of standardsof justice prevalent in a society at a given time; but questions aboutthe objective standing of these standards do not make sense. (Forfurther discussion of moral relativism see the separate entry on thistopic. What has become known as New Moral Relativism will be discussedbelow).
Ethical language is meaningless Essay Example for Free
Ethical language is subjective essay - Studio Alessio
It may be argued that Protagoras could have opted for a moresensible form of alethic relativism where a person’s beliefs arenot automatically true relative to the framework sheaccepts. Rather a belief is true accordingto ’s framework iff (roughly) wouldbelieve that if she were to reason cogently by her ownstandards on the basis of full relevant information. This form ofalethic relativism allows for argument and persuasion among people whoinitially disagree, for despite their disagreement they may share orcome to share a framework. Protagoras may, on this reinterpretation,be trying to persuade his interlocutor that if she were to reasoncogently by her own standards from their shared framework, she wouldaccept relativism. However, it is not clear how the relativist couldshare a framework with the absolutist on the nature of truth or whatargumentative strategies he can use to convert the absolutist withoutpresupposing a shared (relativist or absolutist) conceptions oftruth. In particular, a consistent relativist will have only arelativized criteria of what counts as “true” information,which presumably will not be shared by the absolutist.
Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss. Essay - 706 …
permits a subject to deduce merely that aparticular utterance is now correct but later will be incorrect… cannot assist the subject in deciding what to say, nor ininterpreting the remarks of others. What should we aim at, or takeothers to be aiming at?. (1985: 349)