Shafer-Landau Ethical Theory Summary and Analysis

Shafer-Landau Ethical Theory Summary and AnalysisBrody KentIn this section, Shafer-Landau seeks to call back attention to a major flaw which he finds to exist in subjectivism through its incompatibility with an individuals aspiration to irresolution his or her knowledge righteous set (p. 296).To begin his line, Shafer-Landau states that if subjectivism is correct, whatever is right is what he, Schafer-Landau, approves of. check to Shafer-Landau, this is beca design, under the subjectivist sticker of ethics, a persons own prises are the ultimate authority in determining what is deterrent examplely right and what is chastely wrong (p. 296).In Shafer-Landaus view, however, this use of personal values as the predominant ethical authority does non make sense, as it does non account for instances where a person may be undecided as to the value of their beliefs (p. 296). Arguing to this end, Shafer-Landau claims that he, himself, has personally see circumstances where he ha s been drawn to question his values and their supporting justifications (p. 296). According to Shafer-Landau, this tendency to for an individual to question their beliefs is antipathetic with the use of these beliefs as the can of virtuous truth (p. 296).Through close analysis of this argument as it is made by Shafer-Landau, it appears that he is in that respectby reaching this conclusion found on one of two supposals either it is wrong to question ones values because they confront clean position, or it is impossible for our individual values to represent example f behave because they are founded in beliefs that may be influenced by internal debate and which may therefore change everywhere time in other words, these values cannot represent righteous fact because they lack consistency and objectivity. To counter this argument, I will seek to come out that both of these premises are false the first, due to its inability to eviscerate a legitimate threat to the status of individual values as virtuous truths, and the second due to its inability to accurately represent the genius of individual, subjective truth described by the subjectivist model.Regarding Shafer-Landaus first possible premise to this conclusion, it seems fraudulent to conclude that because a fact is questioned it cannot be a fact. Certainly, there are mevery ideals which we now consider to be fact that withdraw been heavily scrutinized throughout history. As a notable example, the fact that the estate is spherical and not flat has been, and in some cases even continues to be, questioned extensively.Further, it does not seem that the act of questioning a potential fact plays both role in determining whether or not an idea is truly literal. Consider, as an example, the many conspiracies which assert that the Buzz Aldrin and the United States did not vote down on the moon. Despite this argument and those counterarguments which assert that the United States did, in fact, gear u p a shuttle on the moon, the actual fact of the matter, whatever it may be, is a fact in and of itself and is not affected in any way by this questioning. In other words, the legitimacy of a fact is independent of and cannot be affected by any acts of questioning its value or legitimacy. Therefore, if it was Schafer-Landaus intent to argue that our tendency to question our values is incompatible with our values forming the basis of moral fact, this reasoning seems false, as it relies on a poor argument that our act of questioning a fact restitution that facts legitimacy.Shafer-Landaus second possible premise for his conclusion appears to be equally flawed, as it seems to disregard some major components of the join of subjectivist moral reasoning. According to Shafer Landau, the act of questioning the legitimacy of ones moral values cannot make sense, since ones own approvals and disapprovals are the ultimate test of right and wrong (p. 296). Assuming that, through this argument, S hafer-Landau intends to say that moral values are unfit to represent moral truth because they represent ideas that are subject to change under the influence of internal questioning, it appears that Shafer-Landau is ascendant a key aspect of the subjectivist ideal. According to Merriam-Webster, subjectivism is a moral teaching which states that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the profound and the right (Subjectivism, n.d.). From this definition, it is understood that under the subjectivist model, there are no purpose moral truths rather, the subjectivist ideal champions that each individuals values represent subjective moral truths, which are the highest aim of moral truth (Ethics Guide Subjectivism). As a result, subjectivism does not give preference to any single moral value, tho supports every individual value as ethically meaningful to that individual. And it seems that the essence of this idea can easily be expanded to the individual take a im used within Shafer-Landaus argument. If all ideas between individuals are morally worth(predicate) so long as they reflect the subjective moral beliefs of that individual, it seems to fall that all differing values within an individual are morally rich so long as they reflect that individuals perspective, feeling, or belief at the given time.When considered in this light, it no longer appears that the susceptibility of our subjective moral truths to change truly conflicts with the subjectivist model of morality, as Shafer-Landau may be arguing. Rather, it seems that Shafer-Landaus argument rests on a misrepresentation of subjectivism, whereby he is arguing establish on a false perception that subjectivism intends for subjective moral truths to possess the direct of infallibility and rigidness held by objective moral truths. Because the kind of subjective moral truths championed by subjectivist theory are not expected to possess this level of infallibility, and are, in fact, o ften celebrated for their tendency to differ and change crosswise people and cultures, Shafer-Landaus argument for the presence of a conflict in our tendency to question our own moral perceptions while using them to determine our moral beliefs appears false if it intends to argue that this conflict is derived from the resulting susceptibility of our moral values to our own questioning.Through his argument in this section, Shafer-Landau seeks to convey that subjectivism conflicts with the tendency of individuals to question their moral beliefs (p. 296). I have objected to this conclusion in two ways, each of which hold still for to one of what I perceive to be the two most in all likelihood reasons for which Shafer-Landau believes this conflict to exist. First, I have identified that Shafer-Landaus conclusion is unsound if it is based on the false premise that this conflict exists because of our tendency to question factual moral truths. Second, I have found this conclusion to be u nsound if it is based on the premise that subjective moral truths cannot be tractable to adaptation or change due to our questioning our own moral values.ReferencesEthics Guide Subjectivism. Retrieved fromhttp//www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/subjectivism.shtmlShafer-Landau, R. (2015). Ethical Relativism. In The fundamentals of Ethics (pp. 296). NewYork, NY Oxford University Press.Subjectivism Def. 2.b (n.d). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved March9, 2017, from http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjectivism