Examples Of Ethical Objectivism
Thesis: Ethical Objectivism exists because 1) Moral Principles don’t require an author; 2) the deepest moral principles are objectively right or wrong, independent of human and divine opinion; 3) some moral standards are universal.
A1: Some moral principles such as if one kills, then one does wrong, have always existed and are eternal and have no author; as Shafer-Landau said, “It will continue to be true even after the human race is extinct.”
O1: Argument 1 is unconvincing because, just as the laws of nature have no author (humans), moral principles follow suit, authorless moralities are plausible because some principles can’t be traced to a single author and are intrinsic such as the moral principle do not kill others; furthermore, not …show more content…
Furthermore, authors vary according to your beliefs, therefore everyone has their own “author” for the moral principles they believe in. Moral principles must require an author.
R1: Objection 1 is unconvincing because, principles have existed before humans existed; moral principles differ from natural laws therefore are not able to be traced back to a single author as they were already established before humans existed. Although some may believe that their moral principles vary, overarching universal principles are out of their realm and are authorless as they have existed before humans existed; therefore moral principles don’t require an author.
A2: Independent of human and divine opinions/will, certain acts are objectively wrong, such as if you torture another human for fun it is wrong; as Shafer-Landau argued, “the deepest moral principles are like this.”
O2: Argument 2 is unconvincing because the deepest moral principles are subject to change; human intervention acts as a catalyst for that change making moral principles change over time. Just as humans rewrite laws, they can rewrite the deepest moral
A1: Some moral principles such as if one kills, then one does wrong, have always existed and are eternal and have no author; as Shafer-Landau said, “It will continue to be true even after the human race is extinct.”
O1: Argument 1 is unconvincing because, just as the laws of nature have no author (humans), moral principles follow suit, authorless moralities are plausible because some principles can’t be traced to a single author and are intrinsic such as the moral principle do not kill others; furthermore, not …show more content…
Furthermore, authors vary according to your beliefs, therefore everyone has their own “author” for the moral principles they believe in. Moral principles must require an author.
R1: Objection 1 is unconvincing because, principles have existed before humans existed; moral principles differ from natural laws therefore are not able to be traced back to a single author as they were already established before humans existed. Although some may believe that their moral principles vary, overarching universal principles are out of their realm and are authorless as they have existed before humans existed; therefore moral principles don’t require an author.
A2: Independent of human and divine opinions/will, certain acts are objectively wrong, such as if you torture another human for fun it is wrong; as Shafer-Landau argued, “the deepest moral principles are like this.”
O2: Argument 2 is unconvincing because the deepest moral principles are subject to change; human intervention acts as a catalyst for that change making moral principles change over time. Just as humans rewrite laws, they can rewrite the deepest moral