Alexander Chin
Mr. Vogt
AP English Literature and Composition
22 November 2014
No one has morals. Morals are self imposed constructs that one chooses to follow based on their past experiences. It is not possible to reach any truths when it comes to morality. We can only modestly justify them by refuting other plausible hypothesizes. I believe in a theory based on doubt, Moral Skepticism. People are unable to completely deny all possible views of what is right and wrong, so one must discern that all morals are inherently false beliefs while justifying their own.
In order to understand moral Skepticism one should first examine its origin. While moral skepticism is divided into branches, dogmatic skepticism and Pyrrhonian-model skepticism, their …show more content…
(Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes. The two types of contrast classes are modest and extreme contrast …show more content…
(Sinnot Armstrong Section 4) A problem that arises by utilizing a modest contrast class is that an individual can be justified in a belief but lack the qualification. If the contrast class is limited to the choice A and alternatives B, C, and D, an action can be justified if A proves B, C, and D morally wrong. The reason people can be unqualified when utilizing a modest contrast class is that a new option could be presented, choice E. Choice E is not considered so choice A cannot be justified unless A refutes E. (Copp 812) For day to day decisions the use of a modest contrast class is acceptable and generally used because certain extremes are typically refuted. Unknown or unconceived alternatives can be added to a contrast class through newly presented evidence. Evidence is crucial to moral skepticism because it determines how we justify our thoughts so whenever possible one should always strive to understand all aspects of a situation. By comprehending the totality of an event, the best moral decision can be determined.
The extreme contrast class includes every moral claim contrary to the chosen action, including all extreme forms of thoughts. (Sinnot-Armstrong Section 4) One such extreme is the idea of moral nihilism or the idea that nothing is morally wrong. If noting is morally wrong then no moral truths exist. Moral Nihilism in my opinion serves to present
Mr. Vogt
AP English Literature and Composition
22 November 2014
No one has morals. Morals are self imposed constructs that one chooses to follow based on their past experiences. It is not possible to reach any truths when it comes to morality. We can only modestly justify them by refuting other plausible hypothesizes. I believe in a theory based on doubt, Moral Skepticism. People are unable to completely deny all possible views of what is right and wrong, so one must discern that all morals are inherently false beliefs while justifying their own.
In order to understand moral Skepticism one should first examine its origin. While moral skepticism is divided into branches, dogmatic skepticism and Pyrrhonian-model skepticism, their …show more content…
(Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes. The two types of contrast classes are modest and extreme contrast …show more content…
(Sinnot Armstrong Section 4) A problem that arises by utilizing a modest contrast class is that an individual can be justified in a belief but lack the qualification. If the contrast class is limited to the choice A and alternatives B, C, and D, an action can be justified if A proves B, C, and D morally wrong. The reason people can be unqualified when utilizing a modest contrast class is that a new option could be presented, choice E. Choice E is not considered so choice A cannot be justified unless A refutes E. (Copp 812) For day to day decisions the use of a modest contrast class is acceptable and generally used because certain extremes are typically refuted. Unknown or unconceived alternatives can be added to a contrast class through newly presented evidence. Evidence is crucial to moral skepticism because it determines how we justify our thoughts so whenever possible one should always strive to understand all aspects of a situation. By comprehending the totality of an event, the best moral decision can be determined.
The extreme contrast class includes every moral claim contrary to the chosen action, including all extreme forms of thoughts. (Sinnot-Armstrong Section 4) One such extreme is the idea of moral nihilism or the idea that nothing is morally wrong. If noting is morally wrong then no moral truths exist. Moral Nihilism in my opinion serves to present