As a philosophical enthusiast, I frequently question if the legality of an action must always align with its implications? Can we label any action as acceptable, as Burgess suggests? Jago contends that we can set up standards based on the nature of actions rather than cultural norms.
The question of the legality of an action always being aligned to the thing to do morally has been a core philosophical conflict. The conflict between moral and legal relativism brings up the intersection of goodness and correctness in ethical choices. This paper explores the connection between legal relativism to illustrate the discussion, about adhering to moral and legalobligations.
It could be argued that Jagos perspective better supports the idea of moral advancement and meaningful ethical evaluation across communities. Why? The theory on types of actions determines moral truth compared to Burgess’s stance on moral relativism. By understanding Act Type Theory, Jago’s approach enables ethics in the nature of actions rather than cultural norms. However, Burgess’ relativism faces challenges in criticizing cultural qualities. Implications of Burgess’s moral relativism argues Jago’s theory on types of action explores moral truth further.
In this essay I will be defining key terms, elaborating Burgess’s argument, and introduce Jago’s Act Tyepe Theory.
Moral relativism is an idea that moral judgements can be shaped by varying cultural perspectives and may not have universal significance.People from different places have different beliefs about what is right and wrong. This means our feelings about right and wrong are influenced by the groups we are part of and the experiences we have. When we understand and respect other people’s opinions, we can help to learn from different points of view. Legal relativism suggests that laws and legal frameworks vary among societies which implies a lack of universally agreed standards. Laws are made to decide what is right and fair in a society. Sometimes, these rules might not be fair even if most people agree with them. It’s important to think for yourself and not just do what everyone else is doing because it could hurt others.
Understanding the impact of relativism requires a thorough exploration of Burgesss viewpoints and the reasoning, behind his position. “Everyone accepts legal relativism, the view that legality is relative to legal systems, which vary with time and place.” (4.5 Relativity, Burgess), shows that legal relativism is commonly embraced. This viewpoint proposes that the idea of relativism which argues that the interpretation of legality differs, among legal systems and circumstances is acknowledged. In this argument the conflict, in relativism regarding the discussion of moral assessments and assessments of legality, “The difficulty for metaethical relativism arises from the apparent conflict between what it says about moral judgments and what it says about judgments of legality.” (4.5 Relativity, Burgess). “If metaethical relativism is a coherent thesis at all, then it ought to be a coherent thesis when applied to any judgments that are not objective. And judgments of legality are, on the face of it, not objective.” (4.5 Relativity, Burgess), Burgess proposes that, in order for metaethical relativism to be viewed as a logical all subjective assessments need be relevant to assessments of legality. Burgess suggests that evaluations of legality, similar, to assessments, lack objectivity, hence metaethical relativism should be capable of integrating both kinds of evaluations.
This is what I have so far: the paper is about how Jago’s Chapter 9 handles the quotes from Burgess. Jagos
type act fixes burgess misue of moral relativism How? Metaphysics of
proposition/objects . Needs works citied page
