Present in detail the consequentialist argument for the conclusion that moral absolutism is irrational. Do you find this argument compelling? Why or why not?
Moral absolutism is a theory that asserts that universal moral principles should guide people's actions. The theory further notes that specific actions are right or wrong per se. An action such as stealing would be regarded as intrinsically wrong, even if one performs it for the benefit of others. However, moral abolitionism comes with a fair share of challenges especially because people will always disagree with regards to which moral principles should be considered correct or incorrect. For instance, around the globe, it is always a general criterion that one should treat the other the way they should have wanted to be treated. Although this could be true, moral absolutism casts a blind eye on the fact that people from different nations hold different views about morality. The consequentialist theory attempts to debunk the idea of moral abolitionists by postulating that an action is right or wrong depending on its consequences.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Consequentialism primarily hinges on two fundamental principles. First, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on its results. Secondly, if an action produces the best consequences, then it should be considered the more right (Williams, 2012). Therefore, the consequentialist theory asserts that an individual should choose an action that maximizes the desirable consequences. According to the theory, moral absolutism is irrational for several reasons. First, consequentialist theorists debunk the universality of right and wrong. They believe that an action cannot be dismissed as right or wrong based on universal codes but rather depending on the overall effect they have on people. Secondly, they intimate that moral absolutism fails to account for the varying cultures, religions, and beliefs which have an impact in changing the perception of morality. However, I do not find this argument compelling because the consequentialist theory has severe shortcomings. One of its most significant flaws is that it fails to explain how actions such as slavery, human trafficking, or female genital mutilation can achieve any good in the society. It is in this regard that people will rely on moral absolutism to condemn such universally immoral acts.
Describe the three traditional approaches to the question of how we come to know moral claims. Which do you find the most attractive, and why?
One of the traditional approaches to that explains the origin of moral claims is the social contract theory. The theory asserts that people coexist in society as a result of an agreement bound by morals and rules of how people should behave. Proponents of the theory further intimate that living according to social contract enables people to make their own moral choices and thus do not rely on any divine being for guidance. Another dominant approach to moral claims is known as the divine command theory. Here, the theorists forge a close relationship between morality and religion where one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, right and wrong come from the Supreme Being or God. Therefore, if God commands human beings to perform an action, then it becomes moral and if he refuses the action becomes immoral (Williams, 2012). The third traditional approach to understanding moral claims is the virtue ethics. In this approach, right and wrong are classified according to the traditional virtues. Aristotle argued that the ultimate reason why human beings should act morally is to attain the ultimate virtue which is happiness. Therefore, Aristotle asserted that acting reasonably is the single most distinguishing feature that defines traditional virtues (Williams, 2012).
The most attractive explanation of moral claims to me is the divine command theory. I believe that in discussing morality, there has to be a central figure of authority where the idea of right and wrong emanates. Furthermore, associating religion and morals provides people with an incentive to act righteously because there is a rationale for reward and punishment. Therefore, I believe that the biblical teachings about morality are the universal truths that should be embraced by everyone.
References
Williams, B. (2012). Morality: An introduction to ethics . Cambridge University Press.
