Consider the following argument:
- P1. Approached from a variety of angles, morality appears to be objective.
- P2. As a starting point, we should believe matters are as they appear to be.
- C1. As a starting point, we should believe that morality is objective.
- P3. There are no good reasons to give up this starting point.
- C2. We should believe that morality is objective.
With respect to this argument, please answer the following:
-
Drawing on class discussions and the assigned readings, what are the best reasons for accepting P1?
-
Of the 10 arguments Shafer-Landau considers against moral objectivity, which provides the best reasons for rejecting P3? How does this argument work? Note that your task at this stage is not to criticize this argument; it is to motivate it.
Note: you are welcome to provide your own analysis of the argument, including (within reason) by altering its premises and conclusions, but you must pick one of the arguments Shafer-Landau discusses.
- If we assume P2 is correct, and we assume that the argument you considered in (2) is the only reason for rejecting P3, is this overall argument successful? Why or why not?
Note: the major task here is to weigh the reasons in favor of objectivity discussed in (1) against the reasons for rejecting objectivity discussed in (2). As part of this, you should discuss any weaknesses with the argument from (2). You can draw on Shafer-Landau’s analysis here, but if all you have to say is that Shafer-Landau is right and the argument is unsuccessful, you should pick a different argument for which you can say something more insightful.
Word Limit: 1000 (Submissions which exceed 1000 words will be penalized by one third of a letter grade per 100 words. Citations do not count toward the word limit.)
Note: this is a formal piece of writing, but it is not an essay. You do not need a formal introduction, thesis statement, or conclusion – just answer the prompt.
This assignment is due the end of day after session 5.
