The subject of moral disagreement is a serious concern especially to the philosophers of this world. It is a fact that people disagree with others in their everyday life about one or more moral issues. Disagreements are encountered in every dimension of life from the neighborhoods we live in, to the debates on political affiliations. They also cut through the cultural boundaries as people interact with others from different backgrounds. Disagreements tend to bring up theoretical questions concerning the objectivity of morality and the practical questions on how people should think and act about those who differ with them (Machuca 110). This begs the question of what the term morality means. Most philosophers have defined it as a law that cuts through the human experience and understanding. It is deeply rooted in the very foundation of human society and is considered an important facilitator of peaceful coexistence. For all it is worth, moral evaluation tends to elicit emotions. It, therefore, defines our stand on what we believe in. A disagreement is therefore considered moral when it entirely focuses on issues about the public and wider social consequences.
In the contemporary modern society, issues about moral disagreements are bound to arise. People who are reasonable can differ about proper solutions for different moral problems. Even though various parties may base their moral answers to moral problems in a way that is morally justifiable, they do not always arrive at the same moral conclusion. How people perceive different conflicts depend on their views on moral conviction. The moral disagreements usually persist even when significant agreements are reached concerning considerations that are either moral or factual in nature. The disputing parties may in some cases concur on claims that are factual or even of moral values but fail to disagree on how they go about their moral evaluations. In cases for example such as those of education policies on racial consciousness, there may exist an underlying oral disagreement despite a clear stand of the importance of fundamental moral ideals such as those of equality and freedom (Moses 28). The differing sides may not necessarily agree on the moral ideals. When people choose to decide on the most ideal of situations, it does not imply that they share the same moral beliefs on certain issues.
Some conditions may result in disagreements that are irreconcilable; a case of a moral deadlock, that may be the result of a moral conflict. Tersman argues that such situations arise from bad reasoning or moral ideals whose interpretations are conflicting (22). The debate on the importance on moral disagreements start from examples of those that take a skeptical attitude on questions of morality or those that lack features that are unique to moral judgments. Taking an example of the different types of vegans that exist, one will realize that they have differing attitudes and their differences are there to stay. The increase in disagreements might just be one of the evidence that points to moral progress rather than moral stalemate. Moral judgment, when put under scrutiny, allows one to realize that it is a unique form of disagreement and also illuminates the very nature of moral thought.
The presence of widespread, persistent disagreement about ethical issues provides enough evidence that there are no objective moral truths. When dealing with criticism, for instance, it is important to separate the line of truth from that of moral inquiry by putting into consideration of the practicality of moral goals. Disagreements, however, take a central role when dealing with moral experience and are considered a driving force for moral inquiry. It is primarily concerned with the possibility of people co-existing together in a shared space. In their inquiry about morality, philosophers aim is not always to get things right but rather having them done. Frega, in his argument claims that the essence of the norm of truth gives a normative character to a disagreement and the character is depended upon by dialogue (30). The ways that can be employed when dealing with objections to rational arguments include tracking the truth or neutralizing it.
In dealing with the moral inquiry, the assumption of the moral community playing the role of the scientific community should be treated with caution. For a moral society to exist, it should not have similar characteristics that define a scientific community. This implies that only ordinary reasoning is required for this instance. For the moral community to exist, however, there need to be some moral assumptions that can be shared that makes it possible to assess competing beliefs and reach an agreement on the standards that are common to judgment. It is, therefore, imperative to say that one of the causes of moral disagreements is the fact that a common framework that authorizes the inquiry is absent. This in part explains the reason as to why the focus on research often shifts from the objective level of factual inquiry to the reflexive level of articulates and expressive inquiry concerning the moral domain.
The moral inquiry unlike the case of scientific inquiry is founded on the differences in perspectives that are constituted by the moral perspective and should be accounted for positively rather than being reduced to a degree where it becomes irrelevant. Contrary to scientific practices, the frequent standard measure of moral positions cannot be linked to an underdeveloped level of inquiry, affirming the hope that moral inquiry in future might display the degree of agreement that is at par with scientific inquiry. Disagreements and the lack of a common basis in the moral paradigm is dependent on the fact that our moral positions are founded on a different life form. All of them are legitimate but either way, they are based on a variety of assumptions that do not have the scientific hypothesis status.
The validity of the answers on moral belief relies on a philosophers perspective and not the reality of an absolute sense of moral facts of the matter. When the scholars claim validity of any of their statements, they offer arguments that support their wider life plan, its agreement with a set of acts that are shared and accepted by the larger community. The consequences of their decisions should also concur with the standard references if they are to be accessed. It should also exist in society, and the moral judgments should possess a moral capacity to enable them to be enforced on those who share a similar framework. The requirement for the moral tools of inquiry arises whenever our positions diverge and we need to find common ground to overcome issues on diversity and act in cohesion.
Frega, Roberto. Practice, Judgment, And The Challenge Of Moral And Political Disagreement. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2012. Print.
Machuca, Diego E. Disagreement And Skepticism. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Moses, Michele S. Living With Moral Disagreement. Print
Tersman, Folke. Moral Disagreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal:
- Needs in Gender Inequality Overhaul
- The Influence of Certain Interest Groups on Public Administration
- What Excites me About Being a Member of the GW Community?
- Blocking the Transmission of Violence by Alex Kotlowitz
- Prospects of Success for a Uniquely Run Family Business
- My New Friend Potato
- Modern Humanity