Moral Disagreement Textual Analysis Essay

617 Words3 Pages
The world can be a cruel place, and people are crazy. These are both very opinionated statements that are used a lot in todays society, perhaps too many times without knowing precisely what happened. In Appiah’s Moral Disagreement and Kimmel’s Gender, Class and Terrorism, they touch on this issue and give different examples from throughout history. People need to be more open-minded and should understand certain cultures and backgrounds before they judge a person or situation. If you asked anyone in America if they have ever eaten dog meat, they would probably say no and maybe call the police. However, if you went to certain parts of the world and asked the same thing they would say, yes, of course. To many Americans this might seem absurd and crazy just because it is just simply not what they are used to. This brings up the question, who is right? Appiah, in his Moral Disagreement essay, provides a valid answer to this question, “The point is not that we couldn’t argue our way to one position or the other on this question; it’s only to say that when we disagree, it won’t always be because one of us just doesn’t understand the value that’s at stake” (p. 666). Just because different cultures eat different things, even something you might call a pet, it means you shouldn't judge them for it. Another point that comes across in Gender, Class, and Terrorism is the understanding of religion. Kimmel states, “The journalist Nasra Hassan interviewed families of Middle Eastern suicide bombers (as well as some failed bombers themselves) and found that none of them had the standard motivations ascribed to people who commit suicide, such as depression” (p. 652). This is because these bombers weren’t depressed. It’s because in their religion, there is no greater duty than to die for their god and be with them. Should we judge them just because their beliefs, as we
Open Document