Moral pluralism

Moral Pluralism

Abstract

There are several conflicting theories within the moral domain in regard to good and wrong. In the process of determining the level of truth, an important is played by personal interpretations and judgments. In attempting to live together in a society, there are so many challenges in appreciating the authenticity of conflicting views and establishment of levels of agreement. This paper explores what moral pluralism is and the differences between the different levels.

Moral pluralism refers to the assumption that moral truths exist. However, it is worth noting that this assumption does not form the basis of rationality and reliability of truths in comparison to those found in scientific and mathematical approaches (Richardson & Williams, 2008). There are varied views in regard to moral pluralism, for example, some people believe that actions that yield positive results are morally good.

There is a plurality of values and principles relevant to moral judgment that cannot be reduced. In the principle of utilitarianism, there is a belief that morally important considerations can be quantified into pain or pleasure while Kantian theory asserts that all forms of moral judgment can be reduced to a single principle which has to do with rationality and the individuals bearing rationality. Moral pluralism is not subject to complete ordering of rationality. Therefore, it is believed that no procedure or principle can exist without a unique or determinate solution of a moral question that involves choices in moral values and principles (Sneddon, 2011).

There is a belief that the most important aspect of different levels of morality includes relative majority of duties and values. For the rest of morality, it is believed that equality and general wellbeing are the core values. The foundational level of morality is made up of actions that do not harm others and do not facilitate taking of other people’s possessions. Also, other similar pluralistic theories believe that an individual does not need to break promises, to tell lies and rather some individual needs to go an extra mile in showing concern for individuals with special connections. Several versions of moral pluralism are founded and based on such lists of values and duties (Davis, 2004).

In addition, most pluralists believe that there are no strict rationales of precedence that seeks to resolve conflicts that might arise among the actions and values on which they are based. In this regard, there is need to utilize values of judgment so as to resolve conflicts among actions and values of moral pluralism. However, the assumption of moral truths fails to provide any procedure for moral advisement.

Also, the truths upon which moral pluralism is based are not coherent and consistent. There are conflicting theories within the moral domain in relation to rightness and goodness and each of the many theories contain realities about moral life though none of them is comprised of the whole truth (Moon, 2012).

Most activities in the society raise a lot of questions in regard to the type of morality that is guiding the members of the different societies. There are common actions that show that the moral standards are low, for example killing without remorse and dehumanization of each other. This is because the modern society is diverse and heterogeneous in composition. Also, the various cultures and traditions in the society are dynamic and pluralistic in several ways. However, it is unfortunate that pluralistic aspects of moralism are widening over time (Hinman, 2008).

There are four levels of moral pluralism; radical moral pluralism, pluralism of moral practices, pluralism of self-realization and radical moral pluralism. Radical moral pluralism is a level that describes a situation in which people hold different views about morality. However, the believers in this have divergent and radical views yet they do not form the society entirely (Timmons, 2012). In a society, a group needs to be in agreement with certain crucial principles and practices. It is important for members of any society to have a general agreement of the fact that life is worth living and that the lives of all members of the society need to be respected.

However, it is hard to convince those who do not care whether they live or die because it is almost impossible to inform them that they are mistaken. Such people do not form a society because morality is a shared responsibility for all members of a society. It is important to note that a society may be morally pluralistic on the basis of the other levels (Hinman, 2008).

Pluralism of moral practices implies compatibility with social agreement on morality of several basic patterns. However, such agreements do not involve agreements on the variation on the use of moral principles to evaluate actions. In as much as several people believe that murder is wrong, there are members of the society who operate at conventional morality. In regard to murder, there are different moral principles that are compatible to different moral assessment.

Radical moral pluralism refers to moral practices that come from differences in moral principles, differences of facts, differences in circumstances and differences in perception of facts. At this level of moral pluralism, most moral issues are not clear. The developing modern society provides room for moral disagreement. However, in most areas of agreement there is compatibility of agreeable moral practices.

Pluralism of self-realization provides that as long as members of the society adhere to laid down moral norms, they are allowed to make choices on their values and lifestyles. It is a kind of moral pluralism that provides for crucial aspects of moral pluralism such as self-fulfillment and development. Such a society tolerates several differences that cannot be found in a homogeneous society (McDonald, 2011).

References

Davis, J. C. (2004). The Moral Theology of Roger Williams: Christian Conviction and Public Ethics. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Henry S. Richardson, M. S. (2008). Moral Universalism and Pluralism: NOMOS XLIX. New York: NYU Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=tU10u1F2bZwC&dq=moral+pluralism&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Hinman, L. M. (2008). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Stamford: Cengage Learning.

McDonald, H. P. (2011). Creative Actualization: A Meliorist Theory of Values. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Moon, J. D. (2012). Constructing Community: Moral Pluralism and Tragic Conflicts. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sneddon, A. (2011). Like-minded: Externalism and Moral Psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Timmons, M. (2012). Moral Theory: An Introduction. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=qWGp1iK9IlAC&dq=moral+pluralism&source=gbs_navlinks_s