Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Moral Judgments, Moral beliefs and Logical Rules

    Not what you're looking for? Search our solutions OR ask your own Custom question.

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    We've been having some trouble figuring out how we arrive at moral
    judgments. Cultural Relativism, Supernaturalism, Intuitionism, Rationalism.
    all seem to have their good points, but also their undermining bad points.
    Then what do you say to picking out our moral principles by trying to be
    informed and imaginative, and then seeing what we can consistently hold?
    Even if our moral beliefs can't be provable from facts, perhaps we could
    take the positions that "we ought to do this" as a universalizable
    prescription, and then add: "Do this and let everyone do the same in
    similar cases."

    Agree? Disagree? Why?

    And then consider logical "rules" that might go along with this position?
    For instance, we must be logically consistent, right? To be so, must we not
    make similar evaluations about similar cases? And also, to be do so, must
    we not keep our moral beliefs in harmony with how we live and want others to
    live? Do any others come to mind?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 5, 2022, 2:35 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/moral-judgments-moral-beliefs-logical-rules-197864

    SOLUTION This solution is FREE courtesy of BrainMass!

    Hi,

    Excellent debate questions! Let's take a closer look.

    RESPONSE:

    1. We've been having some trouble figuring out how we arrive at moral judgments. Cultural Relativism, Supernaturalism, Intuitionism, Rationalism all seem to have their good points, but also their undermining bad points. Then what do you say to picking out our moral principles by trying to be informed and imaginative, and then seeing what we can consistently hold? Even if our moral beliefs can't be provable from facts, perhaps we could take the positions that "we ought to do this" as a universalizable prescription, and then add: "Do this and let everyone do the same in similar cases." Agree? Disagree? Why?

    Have you given this some thought? Let's disagree as a case in point.

    In theory, this might work. However, even though research has found certain values to be universal, there are still individual differences to account for in every culture. How would we make people behave in a universally accepted way? I guess that is where laws come into play. In fact, our present laws are in fact, at least some of them, are universal in prescription, such as it I wrong to murder someone. However, there are differences across cultures in terms of exceptions to the rule or a law. For example, in some Islamic countries, it is still okay to stone a woman to death for committing adultery, which seems cruel and not acceptable as a reason to murder in most countries. Likewise, in some countries, drinking and driving warrants the death penalty. Thus, even for universal prescriptive laws e.g. It is wrong to murder another human being, they present differently in different countries and cultures. This is because values and principles rooted in religion and culture inform the rules and the laws. THEREFORE, CULTURAL DIFFERNCES IN VALUES will change the laws meaning and what actions are acceptable within the law and what actions result in a deviation from the law, and warrants remedies and punishment for breaking the rule, the law.

    2. And then consider logical "rules" that might go along with this position? For instance, we must be logically consistent, right? To be so, must we not make similar evaluations about similar cases? And also, to be doing so, must we not keep our moral beliefs in harmony with how we live and want others to live? Do any others come to mind?

    The first part of this question is answered above. ALTHOUGH RULES SEEM 'LOGICAL' universally, like it is wrong to murder another human being that results in a law being legislated, not everyone will agree. The reason for this deviation has to do with values and interpretation of the law. Personal values and legal cases set a precedence that define when it is wrong and when it is okay to murder another human being, as an example, which differs across people, countries and cultures.
    In fact, these differences present within the same country. FOR example, in the West e.g. United States and Canada, some people define abortion as killing the unborn child and refer to it as murder. HOWEVER, even after the law changed with Roe vs. Wade, SOME people still hold true to their ethical/moral convictions of what is right and wrong. A democracy demands a majority to create a law, but not consensus (everyone); therefore, there will be some people who still hold true to their convictions even when a law comes into effect because of a majority vote in favor of the law to come into effect.

    Thus, for those who voted in a law, it is a 'rational' decision for them; but likewise, for those who vote against the law this is also a 'rational' decision based on their sense of right and wrong (e.g. it is wrong to have an abortion because life starts at conception, so abortion is therefore murdering the human being, the baby). Therefore, even laws cannot make all human beings conform to a universal set of rules or consistent application across all situations; there are too many differences across individuals, cultures, and countries, and, indeed situations. FOR example, stealing or theft is universally wrong, but what about when a baby will die if the mother had not had the courage to steal milk for the child? Stealing in this situation could be considered 'logical' for many (not all) people; but the law is less flexible or relative, as theft is theft and against the law. This too is considered 'rational' to the law makers. Therefore, logical "rules" that might go along with the universal prescription of values are not defined or interpreted in the same way by all people even judges in legal cases do not make similar evaluations about similar cases.

    And even in theory, if you were doing so e.g. embracing the moral stance to guide your actions by the universal prescription of "we ought to do this" so it becomes a universalizable prescription, we still might not keep our moral beliefs in harmony with how we live and want others to live, due to different situational variables as well as our personal experiences in certain situations bias our actions.

    Can you think of other things to add?

    BEST OF LUCK!

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 5, 2022, 2:35 am ad1c9bdddf>
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/moral-judgments-moral-beliefs-logical-rules-197864

    ADVERTISEMENT