Moral Universalism Essay Research Paper Moral Universalism

Free Articles

Moral Universalism Essay, Research Paper

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Moral Universalism should be a worldview.

I believe that it would be better for the human race to populate in a universe where moral universalism is the recognized worldview. I believe this because moral universalism about offers the universe a moral position that has no struggles, no differences and has no prejudice. It will go clear why I think that moral universalism is the moral manner of believing throughout this essay. A valid account of what moral universalism is and how it can positively impact whole states let alone whole states will be provided.

Ideally, moral universalism offers a universe that will hold no moral dissensions due to the fact that universally everyone thinks in the same manner and mode about ethical motives in general. As you might hold, this would be unrealistic, but however a pure society based on moral universalism would continue those values. With a cosmopolitan train of idea focused upon ethical motives that do non differ from one person to the following there is no room for sentiments or prejudice. Moral universalism makes ethical motives have a cosmopolitan cogency. This one-way train has no intersections or picks or differences. Universally we are all aboard the same train, which would extinguish 1000s of struggles go oning today around the universe due to a different moral system ( i.e. : the conflicts between faiths ) . As Thomas Hurka says on the construct of tolerance and how we should non enforce our values on other people:

The ideal of tolerance is, at least to a point, attractive. But it really contradicts relativism. That s because the ideal is presented as one that is adhering on everyone: everyone in every civilization should forbear from enforcing their values. But that s a cosmopolitan and nonsubjective statement! ( P.112, Principals ; Short Essays on Ethics, Thomas Hurka )

Everyone should forbear from enforcing their values. Yes, that is a cosmopolitan statement and it besides complies with the thought of moral relativism, that we can non side ourselves and say that our ethical motives and imposts are better than another societies. Ruth Benedict explains that certain imposts, such as killing your kids or cannibalism or slaying, are non to be judged as correct or wrong by anyone other than those in that civilization itself. Take for illustration tormenting a babe to decease merely for the merriment of it, now this appears sadistic and evil to you and me, that is because of our moral system. We, being Canadians and raised with the western civilised civilization, have developed

a sense of what is supposed to be right or incorrect ( harmonizing to us ) when it comes down to handling another human being. If everyone in the universe thought the same manner, and believed in the same ethical motives as the western civilisation, ideally, purportedly, whatever actions anyone of us underwent at that place would ne’er be any struggle because it would merely be accepted and agreed upon ( take to an extreme ) . There would be no dissension because there would be nil to differ with and there would be nil to differ with because there would be no differences in moral sentiments and eventually at that place would non be any difference in moral sentiment because we would all have the same 1s!

If we analyze briefly one facet of moral universalism, we can see that with no moral differences there would be no disputes as I have said above but most of all due to the deficiency of differences, there would non be conflicting authoritiess. There might non even be more than one authorities! The consequence of such a alteration would be that there would be universe peace. No more wars, no more hatred. To a certain extent we would look to be a robotic entity lasting on a planet seeking to technologically progress ourselves in order to detect the unknown.

With merely one moral existence, there truly would merely be one civilization. With merely one civilization I am beliing that which James Rachel says about cultural relativism. There is no cosmopolitan truth in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times. ( P.346, Cultural Relativism subdivision, James Rachel ) I am stating that there is, and can be a cosmopolitan truth with moral universalism. That is why I believe I would wish to populate in a universe where moral universalism is the worldview. Theoretically, who knows, possibly someday, moral universalism really might go on and finally the human head through development would accommodate and be assimilated by one moral system. Technically since there will ever be different skin colour, different faith or different states of birth ; moral universalism will ne’er be the worldview, it is merely an appealing attack to the promotion of humanity.

Bibliography

James Rachels, The Elementss of Moral Philosophy ( New York: Random House, Inc. , 1986 )

Robert Streiffer, Moral Relativism and Reasons for Action, B.A. Reed College 1993.

Ruth Benedict, Anthropology and the Abnormal, The Journal of General Philosophy, 1934

Thomas Hurka, Principles Short Essays on Ethics, Harcourt Brace, 1999.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

x

Hi!
I'm Katy

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out