Reject modernity embrace tradition12/22/2023 And so the analysis goes, moving to ever smaller and smaller subsections of society until one arrives at individual moral subjectivism instead of cultural moral relativism. Should we say that morality is relative to such subcultures? Perhaps we should, but if we do, then we must reckon with the fact that many people belong to more than one subculture. However, it’s not clear that the term has a concrete referent: is morality relative to nations-each nation creating and abiding by its own set of moral norms? However, within large nations like the US there are many subcultures that have mores that are distinct from the mores of other American subcultures. Sterba’s objection to moral cultural relativism is that if morality is relative to cultural groups, then the term “cultural groups” must have a concrete referent i.e., cultural groups must exist in order for morality to exist. Second-order goods to which one may be entitled are goods to which one has a right that do depend on the existence of some serious wrongdoing, such as a victim’s right to aid from brutal assault (again Sterba’s example) ( Sterba 2019, pp. First-order goods to which one may be entitled are goods to which one has a right that do not depend on the existence of some serious wrongdoing, such as the right to freedom from brutal assault (Sterba’s example). These fall into two subcategories: first-order goods and second-order goods. Of course, under certain circumstances it may be moral to take these from someone, so these examples are not completely uncontroversial, but in any case Sterba takes it that there are things to which people are entitled. Examples of these, at least according to our founding fathers, might be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The impression I get is that by “goods to which one is entitled” he means goods to which one has a right and that it would be immoral to take from someone. Sterba does not clearly define them: he seems to believe that what he means will become apparent as he discusses them. Here, I must explain these four categories of goods. Both his book and its argument are the result of an intense period of research and productivity. Over the last decade he has organized two conferences at the University of Notre Dame on the topic, published an anthology on the POE, published several articles on various aspects of the POE, and as his own argument from evil to the nonexistence of God has developed, he has made presentations on it at many universities and conferences, including the American Philosophical Association and the Society for Philosophy of Religion. 6 The particular issue in philosophy of religion that seems to have captured his attention is the POE. 5 He believes that certain strategies that have proven effective in ethics and political philosophy can be usefully employed in philosophy of religion as well. 4 In recent years, he has also begun working on issues in philosophy of religion. 3 His work in this area is well known and highly respected. Sterba’s main areas of work are moral and political philosophy. I will begin by explaining Sterba’s argument from the POE.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |