Analysis Of Various Viewpoints Of Metaethics

Metaethics is defined as “a second- order philosophical inquiry that investigates the nature, meaning, and justification of ethical statements. ” (Pacillo 1). A first world inquiry would make direct statements about the world whereas second order inquiries make claims about first order statements. A good example to further assert first order statements versus second order statements would be “a sociologist might make the first-order assertion that moral truth depends upon cultural context; metaethics would ask whether the truth of the statement moral truth depends upon cultural context also depends upon cultural context. ” (Pacillo 1). There are various stances within metaethics that over different overviews- objectivism, culture relativism, subjective relativism, emotivism, and absolutism.

Absolutism is a stance that an action is either right or wrong, no gray area in between no matter the context, For example, the act of stealing will always be viewed as wrong and immoral no matter what the motive of stealing was. The stealing could have been done out of desperation in order to feed one’s starving family, yet from an Absolutism viewpoint it will still be viewed as immoral and wrong to do. As stated in the article “The Basic Stances of Metaethics” it states “Their truth is independent of whether or not they are recognized as such by particular individuals or particular cultures” (Pacillo 3).

The view point of Objectivism is viewpoint in metaethics that are universal moral principles and are valid for all people and all situations and times. It is also intrinsic and not dependent on anything else. An example of objectivism would be murdering an innocent person is wrong. “Once exceptions to moral rules are admitted and finer distinctions are made, we cease to be absolutists. A view that shares many assumptions with absolutism is called objectivism. ” (Pacillo 4), this quote goes to explain that objectivism makes exceptions to moral rules. Murder is wrong when it comes to murdering an innocent person, but in a case where murder is acted upon in order to murder someone in the act of self-defense it is not wrong. This argument is backed by the quotation:

“Thou shall not kill. ” For an absolutist it’s rather straightforward: killing is absolutely wrong, so there would be no exceptions for self-defense or mental impairment. The first thing an objectivist would point out about this prohibition is that kill is too general a term: any rational person would agree that the unintentional taking of a life in an act of self-defense is not necessarily immoral. Given this special case, it would be preferable to make the statement more specific: it is murder that ought to be prohibited,” (Pacillo 5)

Murder would be wrong in the context of an innocent life lost, but not in the act of self- defense.

The next overview to be discussed is called cultural relativism, which is defined as “where the reference class is a culture or some other social group” (Pacillo 12). An example of this in the real world would be on the topic of honor killings. In the United States, honor killings is something is something that is not accepted socially. Whereas in the middle east, it is viewed as an accepted practice. Another type of relativism is called subjective relativism, which is defined as “Closely related to this view is the assertion that moral truths are relative to the individual or to the self” (Pacillo 12). In simpler terms, each person decides what is right and wrong for themselves. Someone who is a subjective relativist would acknowledge there is a moral truth, but varies person to person. An example to further assert this would be if a person thinks spanking or hitting a child is right or wrong, one may think hitting a child is apart of good parenting whereas another person may believe that hitting a child is wrong in their eyes.

A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness is a documentary based on the a remarkable young Pakistani woman by the name of Saba, who was the victim of an attempted honor killing plotted out by her own father and uncle. A honor killing is defined as “the murder of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate, engaging in non-heterosexual relations or renouncing a faith. ” (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Honor_killing)

With the various metaethical viewpoints, this documentary and topic of honor killings could be interpreted various ways. With absolutism, honor killings would be viewed as absolutely wrong in any context. An objectivism viewpoint would say that honor killings are morally correct depending on the context of the situation, such as why the honor killing will be taking place and why it would be morally okay. Cultural relativism would say that honor killings are socially acceptable in Pakistan, but not here in the United States. Subjectivism relativism would take the stance that honor killings that some people may think honor killings are wrong and others would think honor killings are right, the action or moral is relative to an individual.

In regards to the documentary A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, I am taking the stance that honor killings are wrong, making me take the absolutism stance. I personally believe that killing a member of your family is wrong simply because they strayed and shied away from your own beliefs and the beliefs you casted upon them. Even though it may bring same and dishonor upon your family, I believe that family is family and you still be somewhat there for them and respect their personal decision. Honor killings are wrong in my opinion for the mere fact that you are killing a family member for them not following your beliefs for them.

Criticism of the stance objectivism is that honor killings are wrong in all aspects no matter what the circumstance is. No mater why the honor killing wants to take place, honor killings are wrong and should not be executed in any context. Cultural relativism would make the argument that it is socially acceptable in Pakistan but not here in the United States, therefore who are we to judge another culture’s practices. My criticism of this stance is that even though honor killings do not take place in the United States, we still should bring attention to why the practice of honor killings are wrong in all aspects. Even though honor killings are not practiced here it is an issue that is absolutely wrong in all senses. The criticism of subjective relativism is that this stance is saying that just because one may not agree with honor killings, they are not necessarily immoral. Honor killings in general are wrong in all aspects no matter what which makes honor killings all immoral.

By metaethics having various viewpoints, it helps us to get in the minds of others and to see why one may have their own set of beliefs on a given topic and why they think that action is moral or immoral. By having these stances, it helps us to better understand those around us and also helps us to be knowledgeable of other society’s beliefs and moral codes.