The Error Theory : Are Perceived Moral Truths Just Social Standards?

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

As time goes by, ethical and moral issues have been brought up for long periods of time and these issues are recently becoming the rising problem to be discussed in society, business area and daily life. Most of people generally understand that the general meaning of ethics equals to the meaning of moral. However, moral is basically a matter of individual conscience without forcibleness, but ethics are related to social system with forcibleness. The academic definition of ethics is described as a stem of philosophy which raises moral questions and is demonstrated what is the main characteristic of morality and the way in which moral standards are decided (Gray & Webb, 2010).

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

suggests that on a global scale, unique societies fail to share the same evaluative language when

Lewis argues that everyone has a inherent sense of right and wrong. This is observable through a man’s feeling of how people “ought” to behave. One should not confuse moral law with instinct, because if there are two conflicting instincts within a person, Moral Law will point to the weaker of the two instincts. Impulses in themselves, Lewis explains, are like keys on a piano. Neither key is good or bad on its own, but all the “right” keys within the correct context. Moral Law tells use which keys to play.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

The second major part of Mackie?s article convincingly undermines the plausibility of the realist belief in independent and objective values. Mackie attacks the belief from two major angles, the origin of objectivity-laden morals and the supposed nature of objective values, each of which is really a two-pronged approach.

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

“Since cultures disagree widely about morality, there can’t be objective moral truths” (Shafer-Landau, P. 205). Just because there is some kind of

There are a variety of different ethical systems that have developed of the course of millennia. However, even though the subject has been covered so thoroughly, it is still heavily debated. The varieties of ethical systems that are in existence look at various ethical problems from different perspectives and can be applied differently in different circumstances. Because of the subjective aspects to applying ethics, they can be as much an art as they are a science. Ethics are something that must be practiced and really cannot be perfected. In this way, studying ethics is a continual process that does not really stop. This paper will argue that ethics are the most important subject that an individual can pursue.

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

At eighteenth century, the cost of increasing development of capitalism is anomie: people chasing material life insanely even sacrifice others’ benefits. Because of this, Adam Smith, a successful philosopher and economist, released that the original morality principle was not suitable for that society anymore, and it needed to build another new theory system to suit the developing society. He wrote two masterpieces that proposed his ideas: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which discusses the human development by analysing the human emotion, and The Wealth of Nations, which summarises the development of capitalism and it is also a foundation for today’s economy. This essay will analyse the self-interest, plays as a motivator role in morality and economy field, and benefits the development in that society. Moreover, will suggest some limitations of Smith’s idea.

The argument from relativity starts from the common notion that all moral codes and moral judgements vary from society to society and from one period to another (Mackie, 189). The simplest explanation for such intractable moral disagreements is not a lack of evidence or fuzzy perceptions of moral facts, but rather that there are no objective moral facts. However, it is not enough, as Mackie notes, to point to disagreements or inconsistencies between societies to show that moral judgements are not objective, because other disciplines such as biology or chemistry have disagreements as well and we certainly

If some moral claims were true, then there must be some facts to justify their candidness. But which facts are they?

Mackie argues that morals are subjective, therefore they are not agreed upon universally, and there is no underlying correct moral belief. He argues against moral objectivism, which is the belief that morals are universal, and if one was to disagree with another one’s morals, then one of them is incorrect and one of them is correct. He has two arguments for his position: the argument for relativity and the argument for queerness. Another philosopher, Immanuel Kant, says there are two different types of imperatives when it comes to subjectivism, hypothetical and categorical. Mackie tries to clarify his view by comparing it to Immanuel Kant’s claim that some imperatives are hypothetical and others are categorical. Mackie denies that categorical imperatives have any force.