Sometimes a disagreement in attitude results from a disagreement about the fact of the case, and the conflict might disappear if an agreement on the facts is reached. At times, however,  two people may agree about the fact surrounding capital punishment, or some other moral issue, while one regards it as “state-approved murder” and other others regard it as the “highest justice”. The disagreement can only be resolve by a change of attitude. The linguistic component of such changes will be “persuasive definitions”, and in the present dispute about capital punishment  redefinition of murder and justice. But this process of redefinition is likely to be carried out rhetorically,  and so one attitude that does not result from a mistake of fact is no more reasonable or unreasonable than other.

The activity of investigating the concepts and methods of morality, rather than directly engaging with practical issues of whether moral claims are relative to the culture or way of life those who hold them. Or moral claim is objectively true and independently of our comprehensive of them. In other words values are real and so not depend upon our opinions of them. For instance, an objectivist might say that the statement “capital punishment is unjust” is objectively true. The position is called onjectivism because it is like saying that automobiles and persons and other things exist and are “out there” whether you think they are there or not. This position further argue that these values can be found and known by human perceives and that they must be used as principle for human judgements and conduct.

For those who holds that values are relative.  Their truth depend on what society you are from, what time you live in, and what conditions you are brought-up. This position might point out that a certain group  disapprove of abortion. By contrast, people who are of different presuppositions approve. Neither group is right or wrong, since rightness and wrongness are relative to one’s culture, circumstances,  and other factors. Therefore, such values are not  universally applicable at all times or in all places and you cannot speak of a person’s values as “objectively” correct or incorrect.

Relativists  do not reject all moral values . But they deny that values have objective status -as “2 X 2 = 4” is objectively true or that the mobile phone or computer your reading from exists objectively.  Moral values, they argue, are strictly human inventions   and also thought that morality was a private affair

A wise objection to this is that, certain moral knowledge  could be arrived at through the pursuit of truth rather than persuasion.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *