Reference no: EM133668000

Question

Not every decision is indeed a moral one. Also, some moral choices are complex and true dilemmas, where some moral rules will be broken regardless of which way we choose. Many ethical systems have resources for dealing with moral dilemmas that can direct us to the most moral choice. This is preferable to saying it is complicated or there is no good option; therefore, we can do whatever we feel like. It is also preferable to relativism, which effectively says nothing is really right or wrong. If we say that an individual's perception or circumstance determines moral obligation, and thus, it is subjective, this raises some significant objections. If moral obligations are simply a matter of perception, does that not mean that there is no such thing as anything that is morally wrong? How, then, can anyone be punished for criminal acts? Their actions are only wrong if they are perceived to be wrong, given the circumstances. However, nearly everyone has the sense that some things are wrong, e.g., torturing children for fun, rape, racism, genocide, etc.; thus, if you do such things, you are morally blameworthy. What then explains this moral sense that some things are just wrong regardless of how they are perceived and the circumstance? I would love to get your thoughts.