This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Ethical Realism and the intrinsic moral community! Help!

Ethical Realism and the intrinsic moral community! Help!

Postby Sethyoufree » November 25th, 2007, 11:06 pm

I am in a Philosophy class at Cal Poly SLO, called "Ethics." And I have a paper to write about Ethical Realism. I know C.S. Lewis had a ton of really good philosophical ethical arguments, but I need help formulating them.

For the paper I just need some Arguments in the form of an outline...

Premise 1...
Premise 2...
Premise 3...
____________
Conclusion


The first part of the paper is: Using an ethical realist argument give the correct size and membership of the intrinsic moral community.

Do you guys have any good arguments (in the above form) that would get a conclusion as to what is the correct size and membership of the intrinsic moral community?

If so please enlighten me! I'd love any help I can get!
Sethyoufree
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov 2007

Re: Ethical Realism and the intrinsic moral community! Help

Postby Kolbitar » November 26th, 2007, 1:04 am

The man who lives in contact with what he believes to be a living Church is a man always expecting to meet Plato and Shakespeare tomorrow at breakfast. He is always expecting to see some truth that he has never seen before. --Chesterton

Sober Inebriation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Kolbitar
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Feb 2000
Location: Exile

Postby moordarjeeling » November 26th, 2007, 1:25 am

moordarjeeling
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Apr 2007

The intrinsic Moral Community

Postby Sethyoufree » November 26th, 2007, 2:07 am

Sethyoufree
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov 2007

Postby Coyote Goodfellow » November 26th, 2007, 5:46 am

"I don't care if it is wrong," said one of the moles. "I'd do it again."
"Hush, hush" said the other animals.
User avatar
Coyote Goodfellow
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Foshan, China

Re: The intrinsic Moral Community

Postby moordarjeeling » November 26th, 2007, 9:58 pm

moordarjeeling
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Apr 2007

Postby Robert » December 2nd, 2007, 2:28 pm

As far as I can tell, after looking through some of my books and the ever helpful "Wikipedia", ethical realism is actually termed "moral realism." Moral realsim then is the theory that all ethical propositions are invested on "objective" really existing 'good' and 'evils.' In view of this, the opponents of moral realism argue that those existing outside of the moral parameters as set forth by a community of people or are less educated concerning the concrete prohibitions of the community may transgress these laws because of ignorance and not because of their moral agency of choosing the right or wrong thing to do.

This would suggest that an intrinsic moral community, a term I had no luck in finding its meaning, would be that community where moral precepts are accepted or rejected based on their knowledge of an act in relation to its interaction with the objective good or evil consequence. But this is only my conclusion and not necessarily what your professor 'means' by an intrinsic moral community.

If I am right as to the defintions I have discovered and deduced, the correct size and membership of the intrinsic moral community would be all of those who can understand what is right and wrong, as Sethyoufree has mentioned in his sentient beings and moral agents. Consequently a moral agent is a sentient being, but moral responsibility would fall on the shoulders of those who can 'understand' the parameters set forth by the community of knowers that rightly identify what is right and wrong as based on objective analysis (not of the physical sciences but of the branch of philosophy called 'ethics').

So...
Premise one possibility: Ethical (moral) Realism is that ethical theory (perspective) which defines right and wrong in an objective, non-subjective setting.

Premise 2 possibility: What is viewed as right and wrong actions are those which are understood by the perpetrator as being derived from a seeking the 'good' or 'evil' ends associated with his or her desire.

Premise 3 possibility: The size of this intrinsic moral community is comprised of those sentient beings whose knowledge of what is right or wrong, though in no way reciprocal with how they should be treated, also includes those who are moral agents; even though they can not understand the full spectrum of moral rights and wrongs (children, the mentally challenged, etc.)
[I am] Freudian Viennese by night, by day [I am] Marxian Muscovite

--Robert Frost--
User avatar
Robert
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Under the stars and in the midst of things

Postby aToaster » December 10th, 2007, 5:20 am

Might I recommend Dr. William Lane Craig's material as a good place to find solid philosophical and apologetic information. One of his main arguments for the existence of God is on objective morality, thus he goes over the topic in detail. There are a few podcasts on the subject that you can find on the website, and I'm sure plenty of articles too. I realize that your essay might already be turned in, but it if your into philosophy and apologetics it might warrant a look through.

aToaster
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Dec 2007


Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 18 guests

cron