Moral relativism is an agreement based off of an agreement of intentions and not of moral judgment. Therefore, the judgments made cannot apply to other situations in which the motivation for intentions do not apply. Thus, morals are purely situational and cannot be applied to other situations. Therefore, a community standard and strive for a similar society cannot occur outside of the group or individual to which the intention applies. Morals cannot be exported outside of a group or individual in a way in which the exporter can expect the other person/group to understand. Basically, judgment cannot be exported because it applies only to the individual or group who share the intention. Thus, a norm outside of the individual/group cannot occur because the other group/individual does not share the same intentions so an honest conversation cannot occur. The group is expected to not expect the other to understand their judgment because the other group does not share the same intentions. Thus, exaggerated tolerance undermines the possibility of ever forming a community standard.
Intention are not shared, but perhaps they can be discussed. Instead of taking the easy way out in saying “we do not share the same intentions so we cannot judge one another”, they should discuss why they have their own intentions and where their own particular understanding stemmed from in order to have an honest conversation and perhaps work together so that bod intentions can be understood and therefore not only tolerance is possible, but also the possibility of combining and shaping each others intentions to form a community standard- otherwise, a society would never make any progress.
The Problem: How can (perhaps it is impossible) moral relativism be used to determine whether actions of others are moral?
The Solution: According to the author, moral relativism can be used to make accurate internal judgments about whether or not the actions of others are moral. These “inner” judgments are statements that he ought not to have murdered, rather than stating that it was absolutely wrong for him to have done so. Passing such definitive judgment (as I would have done by stating the second judgment) is prohibited in the very definition of moral relativism. Simply put, moral relativism cannot be your ethics (as we have already decided should be the case), but it can be used to logically determine whether others’ actions are moral by determining their motives and judging (but not exporting) whether he or she ought to have done the action in question.
1. What’s the problem?
Harman argued that there cannot be absolutist point of view. Instead, he believes in the relativist point of view, letting us know that humans have unspoken agreements between one another that allow them to function on a daily basis. Thus, this is the problem in my view, because he sees that a society in which everyone is a moral relativist can be a civil society. However, I think that since everyone has their own different opinion there would be no agreements and no one can be wrong.
2. The Solution
I do not believe there is a total solution for this problem, given the nature of human beings. However, I believe that in order to minimize or reduce this problem, human should try to understand their own morality and other people’s morality. This way, it would be easier to be more tolerant towards different points of view. Consequently, morality can be transformed into a way of mutual understanding among people, which would surely contribute to at least, a partial solution to the problem.
The problem of this article is that if some form if moral relativism were to exist, you would first have to figure out how the morals are first made. In moral relativism the morals that we create although we create them for ourselves are almost always are in some form based on agreements that are met between different groups of people. These agreements are reached through what Harman calls implicit bargaining. This bargaining takes the form of a compromise of some sort, each person in each group intending to carry out whatever actions everyone else intends to do. This in turn creates morals in each persons mind, once motivated by some force, and then they carry out the action as they ought to.
problem: people who do not believe in moral relativism define it as something that a society is better off without, when people who do believe in moral relativism have a different definiton that makes it seem like a good idea. So all definitons of moral relativism are biased since they are based on where you stand.
solution: people who do not believe in moral relativism should not describe it as something inconvenient for society, but rather an opposing viewpoint of what they believe to be an ideal community standard.
In the article, "Moral Relativism Defended," the author suggests that a civil society shouldn't live by anything but moral relativism. He tries to prove this by showing that only inner judgment (which can only come from Moral Relativism) is the only kind of judgment that contains two important characteristics: (A) "It implies that the 'agent' has reasons to do something that are capable of motivating the agent" and (B) the audience already knows and understands the speaker's reasoning. Another issue that the author addresses is: Why should anybody stand up for that which is right when the majority of the society is against harming an agreement, but only to protect themselves from the unjust? Also, there is no perfect definition of what is believed to be morally right and what is actually morally right.
To solve the problem of defining what is morally right, the author uses moral relativism to prove that everything is ethical and nothing is unethical. He believes in this theory because with it, all solutions would be, according to the society, ethical and honest. It also would allow the agreement to avoid various ways of being “inconsistent, incoherent, or self-defeating.” In the society which lives under moral relativism, everyone is “just.” The author attempts to solve the problem of people being unjust for the sake of them being harmed by the other unjust.
In the article he says "morality arises when a group of people reach an implicit agreement or come to atacit understanding about their relations with one another" so trying to break this down i think the author is trying to say that morality arises when a group of people reach an understanding about their relations to one another....but later on in the article he says that their is a lack of coherance which is avoiding people to reach an clear understanding of one another. And the unclearness is from our inner judgements, that right now our inner judgement are not only concerning with us but with our audience instead. He says that we are under some sort of compulsion that we kind of just go along with the majority view and assume that the majority view is right. That when we make an inner judgement about someone we say that person ought to do this...but that means you are assuming that the person is going to go by your inner judgement,( make an agreement with you)which then everone else sees. So he says that a moral judgement can be made sense of only by the person who made that moral judgement. So the problem is that we are under a trance in which we just go by the majority view.
He says if we were to be on a clean slate where we werent influenced by others and their own inner judgements on what we should do, then we would all me able to see more clearly what right and wrong is.Then we would be able to make our own judgements in which we can identify the clear problem in which then we can work towards and solve. Instead of being brain washed and not even have a clear understanding of what it is we actually agree or disagree with prevents us from being able to decide what is right or what is wrong.
Problem: He fights the issue that moral relativism is the solution.
Solution: Well his solution was straight to the point that rather than the "ought to be" being in the interest of the person executing the task, it's the "ought to be" in relation to the one affected. His solution is that relitivism is more important to avoid harm to others than to help others, saying that SI is the solution, and eliminating others and letting you just figure it out for yourself is the solution.
The problem of the article is if a group of people see an action as correct or agree in an action as correct is it truly correct. The article uses the example of beings from outer space coming to earth, and from them killing or harming us is in know way or form wrong to them, although it may be correct or just not wrong with them. Thier actions would lead us into converting them into an enemy who she much not
Only punish but destroy.so the problem is that if moral relativist see something as morally correct but is not truly not correct to society
For example the artwork of piss Christ does one view of one Person make that painting or action correct.
The solution i think is that if everyone sees it a correct It is truly and finally correct but if it was the majority it would not be truly correct
Because there would still be people who see it as morally Erin lg and try to convince and or arouse other people that whatever thing is in question is morally wrong. So until EVERYONE sees it as morally correct will the situation or action. Be truly and fully correct.
Problem: Is that judgement can be put into different forms, such as a moral point of view, or an assumption, or maybe a comparison to other situations. Therefore it is difficult to provide evidence whether something is right or wrong because everyone's judgment does not come in the same point of view.
Solution: A solution may be that when judgement is being placed on a certain situation, the level of personal association as well as comparisons are leveled out. An individual should not base a complete judgement on just their morals, or just a similar situation. They should also not assume before knowing much evidence.
Problem: Moral relativism may be needed in agreements
Possible Solution: The ideas of each person should be shared and developed in a way that there is compromise, and each person sacrifices a little for the benefit of everyone. Moral relativism is simply the starting point of a community standard.
The problem is how can you tell when morality rises and how do they reach an agreement. The solution is to not only think of the way you think is right but to consider alternates and be more concerned with the process.
The problem of the article is that people confuse “ought” and “should” with a phrase of ”this is right” or “this is wrong.” They confuse moral relativism with absolutism, and by their misconception of moral relativism, have completely rejected it. When people make judgements, they base them on single events out of context. Also, people consider that people did “unjust” actions for no reason and do not consider the reasons for which one did the “unjust” action.
Moral Relativism could work successfully if inner judgements as to a person’s actions were regarded as a whole with motive and background. Though one cannot export judgement upon others, one can properly import it.
Perhaps the problem of the article is that the author tries to defend the idea of moral relativism, and the use of it when viewing others' ethical decisions. A possible solution give in the article is perhaps if there is an argument in their morals that tell them what they are doing is wrong, you can say that they are immoral. If there is not, you can say the activity is wrong, but the be people do not know better, so you can not say that they themselves are immoral.
I think that the author's argument that moral relativism could some how make up the fundamentals for a community standard and therefor a civil society is incorrect. In a moral relativist society all individuals involved wouldn't be thinking of how their actions would directly impact their society, because all their actions would be correct no matter what anyone believed. This doesn't ensure any kind of tolerance of others or a true community standard because everyone would do what they wanted whether it was truly right or wrong; in their eyes they would always be correct. A solution to this problem is to try to achieve a society is which an honest conversation is a base for the civil society.
Problem: The problem presented in this article is that moral relativism, while making sense in that it promotes everyone's self interest, perhaps is a failed system since it prevents a community standard incorporating others from developing. This is a major issue as in order to have a civil society, which is essential, we must have a functional community standard which is not present in moral relativism. We need to incorporate others into the conversation if we want to have a true honest conversation, and moral relativism is based solely on individual morality and thus cannot function. Therefore, the problem lies in that if not all that promotes our self interest is morally right, as in moral relativism, how can we establish a successful community standard that is a compromise with others.
Possible Solution: A possible solution to this problem is finding a balanced community standard that is not an extreme as moral relativism is, as well as incorporating others in the conversation and agreement in order to reach a compromise and a true community standard that also promotes an honest conversation.
The problem of the article is if Moral Relativism is an appropriate way to achieve a Civil Society through the use of a Community Standard. The solution is that it cannot because there will be no community, there will just be one person judging others, and if two or more moral Relativists have different opinions on an issue, how is any possible decision made?
Identify the Problem
The problem of the article is if moral relativism can be accepted. The author, Gilbert Harmon, believes that moral relativism CAN be accepted despite the debate that it cannot be accepted at all. In attempt to justify his reasoning, Gilbert Harmon goes against the idea that moral relativism is bad and instead, tries to defend it. He does this by pointing out that the definition of what people believe what moral relativism is, is that it is “an inconsistent thesis with no universal moral principles” that is confused, incoherent, and immoral. He then states that the previous definition is not the only definition of moral relativism. Harmon then argues and defends another version of moral relativism, defined as “a soberly logical thesis about logical form”.
Identify a Possible Solution
A possible solution to the problem is that moral relativism can be accepted to a certain extent but cannot be as free as to not importing ANY judgment from others. In the article, Gilbert Harmon explains why moral relativism can be accepted and presents the idea that “Morality arises when a group of people reach an implicit agreement or come to a tactic understanding about their relations with one another”. He then explains that in order to judge if something is right or wrong, the person must have an understanding of the situation or agreement. Harmon then introduces the idea of “inner judgments”, which are judgments that conclude that an individual ought to or not ought to have done something (or right/wrong). Inner judgments, can only be applied when a person has a motivation to do something, and the judger agrees with the motivation. In order to reach an inner judgment, Harmon argues that they are reached through compromise from different points of view (such as the individual and the majority/public).
When the judger agrees/understands the motivation, he can criticize the moral relativist with the word “ought”. When an individual is pursuing his self-interest, others may not reject or express an inner judgment of him for being a moral relativist unless they understand or agree with what motivates him to pursue his self-interest. If the judger does not agree/understand the motivation, they can only criticize the act of the individual, not the individual himself. Although society can accept an individual for being a moral relativist to a certain extent, society still must control the amount of power a moral relativist can have so moral relativism does not become the community standard. Moral relativism still has to have some sort of restriction on it but this restriction must be reasonable (critics must be people who understand the individual’s motivation) so Harmon’s theory allows for modification.
The problem of the article is that morality cannot be reached if there is no consensus
the possible solution can be that if there is a consensus is reached, there will be morality
The problem in this document is that people who believe in moral relativism state the society would be better off without it and people who do believe in it state that it simply benefits society. So basically all definitions of moral relativism are biased due to the fact that it is to suit those whom are defining it.
The solution is that members of society who don’t believe in moral relativism shouldn’t describe moral relativism as something negative which harms society they should describe it as something for those who are unsatisfied with the community standard use.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union