The claim that moral values cannot be derived from facts is grounded in the idea that facts are descriptive and informative whereas value propositions are prescriptive and imply that we ought to carry out certain action or act in a particular way. In essence, while facts give us information about the world itself, values tell us how we should act. It is accepted that facts are cognitive and are therefore know to be true or false. However, non-cognitivists support the idea that moral truths cannot be known due to the notion that any individual who is making moral judgements is not articulating their beliefs about the way the world is. Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals.
The purest judgment lies in those who expect no results and thoroughly analyze the conclusion they wish to understand, disregarding judgments about selfishness due to one who’s own wishes are concerned. Those in which are quick to judge will make the decision a person is not being genuine in the words he says due to his own wishes being involved. Whereas looking into the judgment, as well as the person stating it, and realizing whether or not that person is wholehearted and genuine, disregarding their wishes in the statement, and realizing that what they are saying is reasonable. Others will automatically look past whom that person is inside, and will assume conclusions in which will make the person seem self-centered, or stating a judgment for his own good. In a metaphorical term, we gain a lens, in which allows something to be more thoroughly understood.
G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is not very meaningful as it cannot be correctly defined. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be defined. Moore disagreed that ethical language could prove whether something is moral or
Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory. • It can be difficult to implement in both a personal sense and in society as a whole. No one can fully understand and take into account every single consequence of an action regardless of how intelligent they may be. Therefore no one can be sure that his or her action will cause no pain, and will be beneficial to everyone involved. • Situation ethics can even be a way to approve of what are considered in society as ‘evil’ acts.
The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
The second of Hume’s points is that the causal principle is doubtful. His evidence for this is that we can conceive of things without a cause therefore things without a cause are possible this is also backed up by Mackie who says that the causal principle has no evidence and only exists in a methodological sense. However this argument also has severe faults that discredit it. If the arguments from causality are questionable then that means that the arguments from conceivability are questionable as well. This could also mean that a logically necessary truth could be conceived as false if you don’t completely understand it.
Critically assess two arguments in support of widespread local skepticism. Skepticism may at first seem like a fruitless field of study, for how can the study of a topic which claims knowledge is impossible provide any greater insight into the philosophical realm as any conclusions themselves are knowledge. It could be said this is true yet discounting this view totally would be ignorant due to the arguments that have been put forth in its favour over its time in existence. Local as opposed to global skepticism differs in that a local skeptic does not believe all knowledge is impossible but that certain kinds of knowledge such as about time, the external world, other minds and of empirical generalisations. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time.
He himself points out three different reactions to this. One might say that the statement is false, even pernicious – this kind of people would see it threatening morality and everything else worthwhile. The others might think it is a trivial truth – seeing it too plain to be worth arguing about. Others might regard it as empty or meaningless, seeing no real issues raised by the question whether values are a part of the fabris of the world or not. Mackie’s claim that values are not objective and not part of the fabric of the world includes several things that could quite loosely be called moral values or disvalues – for example rightness, wrongness, obligation and so on.
Direct lying is seldom used people use this method because they think, “the only purpose of language is to convey information that should be stated outright”(Tannen 1). Another way of lying is indirect which is used when a person does not want to tell the truth to another person because the truth might hurt their feelings, but Tannen explains that people who are direct to others will be hurt by a persons indirectness more than if they were direct to them (1). The last way of lying explained by Tannen is the use of language and the right wordage to use. Sometimes using different words help the situation at hand. Tannen concludes that the use of direct is encourages
She argues that not only is moral isolationism the view that one ought to respect other cultures but not judge them not right but it is logically incoherent. She presents four arguments that judgment is logically antecedent to respect that outsiders can judge foreign cultures if on a provisional basis and that moral isolationism leads to a complete inability to make moral judgments of any kind, and that cultures are not as moral isolationism holds isolating barriers. Her first argument is if moral isolationism is correct then one can respect a culture without judging it. But this is logically incoherent because judgment is logically antecedent to respect. One must judge a culture to some degree in order to respect it.