Argument Evaluation # 1 – Is morality universal?
Instructions:
In your own words, identify the argument or arguments in the following passage. Be certain to clearly identify the premise(s) and the conclusion for any argument. Indicate whether the premises require empirical (evidential) or conceptual support. Indicate the degree of logical connectedness (necessary, strong, weak, none) of the argument.
Given the above, indicate whether or not you accept the conclusion of the argument.
Your evaluation should be no longer than two, double-spaced, 12-point font, one-inch margin pages. Please do not cite outside sources. Be sure to include your full name and student number.
It is due at the beginning of class on July 10th. No email submissions will be accepted.
Quote:
“Morality is often thought to be universal. If something is wrong, it's supposed to be wrong for everybody; for instance if it's wrong to kill someone because you want to steal his wallet, then it's wrong whether you care about him or not. But if something's being wrong is supposed to be a reason against doing it, and if your reasons for doing things depend on your motives and people's motives can vary greatly, then it looks as though there won't be a single right and wrong for everybody. There won't be a single right and wrong, because if people's basic motives differ, there won't be one basic standard of behavior that everyone has a reason to follow” (Nagel
Please note that no one here will do your work for you. However, we will be happy to read over what YOU THINK and make suggestions and/or corrections.
Please post what you think.
The argument in this passage is centered around the question of whether morality is universal. The author presents two premises to support their conclusion.
Premise 1: Morality is often thought to be universal.
Premise 2: If people's motives vary greatly, there won't be a single right and wrong for everybody.
The logical connection between the premises and the conclusion is strong, as the conclusion directly follows from the premises.
The author's conclusion is not explicitly stated, but it can be inferred as follows: If people's motives vary greatly, there won't be a single right and wrong for everybody. Therefore, morality is not universal.
To evaluate this argument, we need to consider whether the premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion. Premise 1 states that morality is often thought to be universal, which suggests that there is widespread belief in universal moral standards. This premise does not require empirical evidence, as it is based on common understanding or perception of morality.
Premise 2 argues that if people's motives vary greatly, there won't be a single right and wrong for everybody. This premise also does not require empirical evidence, as it is a conceptual claim about the relationship between motives and moral standards.
Overall, the argument makes a reasonable point that if people's motives vary, it is difficult to establish a single set of moral standards that applies universally. However, it does not address the possibility of a foundational, objective moral standard that could exist independently of individual motives.
In terms of accepting the conclusion, it would depend on one's personal beliefs and views on morality. Some individuals may agree with the argument and reject the idea of universal morality, while others may hold the belief in universal moral standards regardless of varying motives.