Evaluate the Claim That “Moral Values Cannot Be Derived from Facts”

According to Mill’s arguments and views on happiness, it is convincing that happiness is good: that each individual’s happiness is a beneficial thing to them. As well as, the proof of happiness is when people actually desire it and feel like they have never desired anything else (44). Mill defines happiness as intended pleasure and freedom from pain. Utilitarianism and happiness are linked to each other because the morality of a human action should do the right thing that is useful or beneficial to the society, which happiness is involved. For example, a person sees an elderly struggling carrying the grocery bags, and then the person comes over and helps. The outcome makes both of the people feel happy and it constitutes the society a better place. When people want to break away from unhappy people will take other people’s happiness away to make them happy.

Moral and values is some of the things we learn as we grow up and these morals and values we learn from our parents and friends and also from our cultures and some of them you get to develop them as you grow up. The is so many ways to develop ones morals and values and cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism is of those ways that are used to develop morals and values.

Hume was aware that his broad understanding of virtue was controversial and he offered several defenses for his position. After presenting the neglected attacks of his contemporaries, and Hume's response, I will argue that a problem remains: by failing to distinguish between degrees of virtue, Hume also fails to distinguish between degrees of vice. But, some vices such as malevolence clearly deserve punishment whereas other alleged vices such as uncleanliness clearly do not. Thus, for adequate retribution, a distinction is needed between important and less

J. L. Mackie makes his position explicit by opening his article "The Subjectivity of Values" with this terse statement: "There are no objective values." Mackie had found recent dialogue in moral philosophy to be fraught with misunderstandings and conflations of various moral positions, so he felt it necessary to rigorously define his position as well as the boundaries of his concerns. Thus his article has two major parts: First, Mackie defines the nature of his moral skepticism, and, second, he defends his position by showing the implausibility of moral realism with a series of arguments.

#7 Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do. Philosophical examination of moral reasoning faces both distinctive puzzles

Morality must be objectively derived because (1) the concepts of good and morality exist; (2) cultures differ regarding certain moral actions, thus there is the need to discover which is right but cultures are similar regarding the existence of and need for morality; (3) relativism is not logical and does not work, (4) for moral principles to be legitimate and consistent, they must be derived external to human societies. Otherwise morality is merely one person's choice or feeling, not an understanding of truth; and (5) the existence of religion. People recognize a moral aspect to the worship of deity; even if the deity does not exist, we still perceive a need for morality to be decreed by Someone

What argument does Hume give to support the claim that morality is based on sentiment? How does Hume envision the relationship between reason and passions or sentiments? Do you agree?

Ethical naturalism is a realist, cognitivist position which posits that moral facts correspond to some sort of natural facts, which may or may not be capable of definition. Peter Railton in “Moral Realism” posits that such a definition is possible, offering an extensive account of non-moral good.

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

Furthermore, J.L. Mackie calls his outlook on morality, moral skepticism that is about objective facts. “Mackie offers three arguments for

Moral realists claim that despite human opinions about ethical values, there are objective moral truths which make some ethical claims true. Despite the objections of moral realists, what some people refer to as moral truths are nothing more than mistaken assertions based on the presumption of moral qualities; in fact, this paper will explore the idea that there are no accessible moral features in this world and any attempt to assert moral truths is just a reaction to an idea based on social expectations.

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the

In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that

I agree with Audi because the beauty of moral knowledge is that it is different for everyone yet somehow for many it is quite similar even if they’re generations apart or worlds apart. Moral knowledge may come from an idea, like the idea of hitting an innocent dog is absolutely horrible and no one should ever hurt a dog no matter what by simply just thinking about it or through previous ideas with empirical evidence, such as past observations, basically like rationalism.

Morality, a part of ethics is a debatable topic. The study of ethics called metaethics deals with what morality is and deals with the scope of moral values. The debate in metaethics about morality is on the existence of moral facts. Philosophers have different perspective on morality and have different views on moral values having a true/false value like scientific facts. Moral facts define morality as something that can have a truth value attached to it. Therefore, moral facts conclude that there are principles governing what is moral and what is not. However, there are philosophers like J. L. Mackie and Gilbert Harman, who do not believe in moral realism or that moral facts exist. Mackie does not believe in the general subjectivism that states that morality reports one’s emotions or attitudes. He believes in moral skepticism or second order moral subjectivism which means that there are no entities or relations or objective values of a certain kind (Mackie p. 778, 2016). Harman believes that we cannot observe moral facts because morality cannot be treated like science where we can observe and conclude facts to be true. He believes that moral values are more like mathematics where we take something to be true not by observation, but because we know it is true (Harman p.793, 2016). On the other hand, there are philosophers like James Rachels who are against subjectivism in philosophy. Rachels believes that there are moral facts, but their truth value weighs on reason rather