As described in this week’s videos, many ethics/morality authors (as well as man
As described in this week’s videos, many ethics/morality authors (as well as many everyday people) will tend to assume/adopt one of the five major meta-ethical positions: moral subjectivism, moral relativism, moral objectivism, moral absolutism, and/or moral mishmash. An author might be assuming any one of these while crafting his/her argumentation about a particular moral/ethical issue, concern, etc. By assuming/relying upon one of these positions, an author’s argumentation inherits the strengths and weaknesses associated with the position. Readers/listeners that are able to recognize which meta-ethical position is being assumed have an immediate advantage when they begin to analyze an author’s reasoning. Any inherited weaknesses can be exploited via objections or can be preemptively remedied when one wants to strengthen an author’s argumentation. Either way, possessing a working knowledge of the most commonly assumed meta-ethical positions can make the analysis of ethical/moral arguments easier, or at the very least provide one with an early warning that an author’s argumentation will require significant effort to understand, analyze, refute, strengthen, etc. Thus, it’s worth our time to become familiar with these positions, especially their strengths and weaknesses. This week’s discussion provides us with an opportunity to do so.
The task:
Choose one of the meta-ethical positions described in Objectivism & Relativism (SE) Part 1 and provide the most charitable argument that you can for that position.
One might begin his/her post with a sentence like,
‘I will argue that X is the best meta-ethical position.’
And then, follow this thesis statement (major claim/conclusion) with a sentence like,
‘X is the best position because…’
Using this structure has the benefit of clearly identifying the position you will defend and the starting point of your reasons. If you find this structure to be helpful, use it. If not, then it’s fine to compose your defense in whatever way makes the most sense to you. The only composition requirements are that the position and your reasons be easily identifiable, & that all words/sentences be your own, there’s no need for quotes, etc.
Keep in mind that the goal is to “sell” the position to your peers. You will want to include reasons that emphasize its pros and provide remedies for a few of its cons. It’s not necessary for one to emphasize all possible pros nor to remedy all cons. But, it is necessary to honestly attempt to make the position you select seem plausible and appealing, despite its potential cons.
