2. 考研
  3. 【F1】The hypothesis that moral judgments are emotionally based can explain why they vary across cultures and resist transformatio

【F1】The hypothesis that moral judgments are emotionally based can explain why they vary across cultures and resist transformatio

admin2013-09-16  67
问题     【F1】The hypothesis that moral judgments are emotionally based can explain why they vary across cultures and resist transformation through reasoning, but this is not enough to prove that moral relativism is true. An argument for relativism must also show that there is no basis for morality beyond the emotions with which we have been conditioned. The relativists must provide reasons for thinking objectivist theories of morality fail.
    Objectivism holds that there is one true morality binding upon all of us. To defend such a view, the objectivist must offer a theory of where morality comes from, such that it can be u-niversal in this way.【F2】There are three main options; Morality could come from a benevolent god; it could come from human nature; or it could come from rational principles that all rational people must recognize, like the rules of logic and arithmetic.
    【F3】The problem with divine commands as a cure for relativism is that there is no consensus among believers about what God or the gods want us to do. The problem with human nature as a basis for universal morality is that it lacks normative import, that is, this doesn’t it-self provide us with any definitive view of good and bad. Suppose we have some innate moral values. Why should we abide by them? Non-human primates often kill, steal, and rape without getting punished by members of their troops. Perhaps our innate values promote those kinds of behaviors as well. Does it follow that we shouldn’ t punish them? Certainly not. If we have innate values - which is open to debate - they evolved to help us cope with life as hunter-gatherers in small competitive bands. To live in large stable societies, we are better off following the ’civilized’ values we’ve invented.
    Finally, the problem with reason is that it never adds up to value. If I tell you that a wine has a balance between tannin and acid, it doesn’t follow that you will find it delicious. Likewise, reason cannot tell us which facts are morally good. Reason is evaluatively neutral. At best, reason can tell us which of our values are inconsistent, and which actions will lead to fulfillment of our goals. But, given an inconsistency, reason cannot tell us which of our conflicting values to drop, and reason cannot tell us which goals to follow.【F4】If my goals come into conflict with your goals, reason tells me that I must either thwart your goals, or give up caring about mine; but reason cannot tell me to favor one choice over the other.
    Many attempts have been made to rebut such concerns, but each attempt has just fueled more debate.【F5】At this stage, no defense of objectivism has swayed doubters, and given the fundamental limits mentioned here, objectivism looks unlikely.
【F5】
选项
答案在现阶段，试图捍卫客观主义的观点无一能动摇怀疑者的信念。并且，鉴于上文针对各观点提出的基本局限性，客观主义观点看来并不可取。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/IBO4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)