The Endless Quest For The Universalization Of free essay sample

Morality Essay, Research Paper The Endless Quest for the Universalization of Morality Throughout history, philosophers have been preoccupied with the impression of a cosmopolitan # 8220 ; right # 8221 ; and # 8220 ; incorrect # 8221 ; . Philosophers want to hold a kind of morality mensurating stick that would enable them to judge a individual # 8217 ; s determination as being morally right or incorrect, independent of the state of affairs and fortunes that led to that determination. Since an Universal Law of Morality hasn # 8217 ; t been discovered yet, philosophers have to utilize assorted moral theories to measure the morality of determinations. Some of the moral theories philosophers have developed over the old ages have come really near to being accepted as as universal, but none have had the features that it takes to be classified as universal. Since doctrine lacks an Universal Law of Morality, philosophers must take into history the grounds and fortunes behind moral determinations, therefore they must utilize moral theories that are comparative to decision -maker and his/her state of affairs. Conventional moral relativism is the thought that morality is defined by single civilizations and that each civilization has its ain morality that is comparative to that civilization. William Graham Sumner believed that every civilization has its ain set of values and imposts, so # 8220 ; The # 8216 ; right manner # 8217 ; is the manner which the ascendants used and which has been handed down # 8221 ; ( Sommers 213 ) . Even though some civilizations portion many of the same values, they don # 8217 ; t have the same morality. Valuess are what consequence people # 8217 ; s determination devising, but they do non work independently. Values work as a system, where some values are worth more than others, so two civilizations with indistinguishable values could hold wholly opposite ethical motives because of the order of importance of the values in their value system. This allows for the possibility of different civilizations doing different determinations when faced with the same mo ral quandary and to still be # 8220 ; right # 8221 ; , relative to their morality. Ruth Benedict believed that # 8220 ; Most persons are fictile to the modeling force of the society into which they are born # 8221 ; ( Sommers 205 ) , and since each person is influenced by many different societies, persons develop otherwise every bit good. Persons are exposed to a broad array of beliefs and values, and because worlds have freewill they have the ability to take what facets of society # 8217 ; s morality they want to accept and/or adapt to their ain morality. Subjective moral relativism is the belief that morality is comparative to the person and that every person can hold his or her ain morality. This theory is normally opposed chiefly for the fact that those who accept it are denying philosophers the right to judge morality. Philosophers use their theories of morality to judge other people # 8217 ; s morality. In order for a philosopher to unbiasedly judge person # 8217 ; s morality they must hold an Universal Law of Morality by which to justice, without one ph ilosophers are merely, in an kernel, comparing two comparative positions of morality and stating # 8220 ; my positions are better than yours # 8221 ; . The Judeo-christian tradition says # 8220 ; Do non judge # 8230 ; # 8230 ; .Do non reprobate # 8221 ; ( Sommers 93 ) so philosophers, in theory, have no right to judge the determination of another. Louis Pojman believed that # 8220 ; If Morality is comparative to its civilization, so there is no independent footing for knocking the morality of any other civilization but one # 8217 ; s ain # 8221 ; ( Sommers 248 ) . When philosophers who judge person else # 8217 ; s morality, unless that person has the same morality of the philosopher, the philosopher is seeking to compare the individual to a set of criterions that aren’t comparative to the individual. In a sense, philosophers, who believe their moral theories to be cosmopolitan, are ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is a signifier of bias in which a individual rejects the positions of all civilizations except his or her ain, and when philosophers criticize person else’s moral beliefs the philosopher isn’t being tolerant of other cultures/individuals. Conventional moral relativism would let philosophers to justice others within his/her ain civilization, since conventional moral relativism says morality is comparative to each culture/society. Harmonizing to subjective moral relativism an individual’s morality is comparative to the person, hence the lone morality philosophers can judge is their ain. Philosophers ever consider subjectivism shut-in because if they considered it valid they would be out of a occupation, and unable criticize moral decision-making. The lone clip when a Universal Law of Morality was come-at-able was back at the beginning of clip, at the clip of creative activity, because every minute since so worlds have been holding experiences that change them and do them germinate. Alasdair MacIntyre felt that # 8220 ; The significance and ethical worth of any individual # 8217 ; s Acts of the Apostless can be understood merely as a portion of the life narrative of that individual # 8221 ; ( Sommers 316 ) . Universalization in morality can merely be true when there is a clean slate for which it to judge, when everybody has the same sum of experiences. Each civilization since the beginning of clip has evolved and/or changed at their ain gait, and no two civilizations have evolved identically. Since no two civilizations are indistinguishable, and no person is effected by merely one civilization, each person is a alone runing pot of different thoughts and values. Diversity is indispensable for the positive hereafter of our un iverse. Universalization would smother any thoughts or values that go against or differ somewhat from the norm. Our civilisation would no longer go on to develop and germinate, it takes new thoughts and values to convey about alteration. For illustration, if we had a Law of Universalization of Morality people like Martin Luther King would hold been considered morally incorrect because the bulk # 8217 ; s morality was pro-segregation while his morality called for all people to populate together. Trying to do a universalization about people that aren # 8217 ; t indistinguishable is inherently false, and who is to state that one thought, merely because it is held by the bulk, is right and another is incorrect. Statisticss should keep no value is judging the morality of an action. If 100 people tell prevarications and one individual tells the truth, the philosopher who is seeking to universalise, would see the truth teller an outlier and conclude that lying is morally right. If we lived in a vacuity, where all people had indistinguishable experiences throughout their whole lives and no outside forces acted the people, an Universal Law of Morality would be really come-at-able. Today # 8217 ; s dominant moral values became dominant by accident, society merely evolved in a manner that catered to these dominant moralities. The normal should no longer be considered the normative. You can non anticipate a adult male to be bound to a Universal Law of Morality unless all work forces are indistinguishable. Until the twenty-four hours when we reach our maximal degree of development, that we seem to be easy coming, and all work forces are at that degree, the thought of universalization in respects to morality is a pipe dream. Philosophers so and merely so will hold the ability to reasonably and expeditiously justice another adult male # 8217 ; s morality.