Questions #2

1) Identify an issue in the text that you feel strongly about and
explain why you feel strongly.
I feel strongly about Expressivism since facts must be considered as the
ultimate truth while the morality of a person should be considered as a way
to express feelings. I deeply enjoy to have arguments with people that have
a contradictory moral about something. For instance, I once had a discussion
with a friend who has a strong feeling about women being constantly
sexualized in the media. This person is a strong feminist, while I am not and
though I could see where he was coming from, my personal beliefs
contradicted his since I believe both genders are sexualized, not just one. We
both used really similar facts to support our beliefs, though we viewed them
and interpreted them morally differently.
2) Explain how the following terms are related to each other: moral
skepticism, ethical objectivism, ethical relativism, and moral
nihilism.
Moral skepticism talks about how there cannot be moral knowledge, as a
matter of fact, moral knowledge is impossible since for there to be
knowledge there has to be a factual truth. Since morality cannot be
considered as a truth, because there are multiple interpretations, it cannot
be considered as knowledge. Moran Nihilism supports this way of thinking,
adding that there is no morality at all; that every moral thought is false.
Ethical objectivism opposes to these two similar concepts, arguing that there
is a moral truth and that this truth should be considered as a fact. Ethical
relativism is similar to Ethical objectivism by stating that moral beliefs from
a community/society are the ultimate, undoubtable truth.
3) Do you agree that if there are no objective moral truths, moral
progress is impossible?
I disagree. I believe that if there are no objective moral truths, there is still
the possibility of moral progress. I think that objective moral truth is
impossible, because morality cannot be considered as facts that should be
taken into account at the time of making every decision. For there to be
moral progress there must be a greater development in facts and
contradictions, since contradictions give an opportunity to think and facts
help to think more objectively; therefore, giving place to moral progress.
4) How might Dewey respond to the two forms of relativism? Would
he endorse one over the other, reject both entirely, or seek some
reconciliation between relativism and objectivism?

Dewey, in my opinion would believe that both of them can coexist. He might
add that they do not work separately, but for there to be a moral truth, they
much work together. Then the human would take in account both, the
communitys morality and the personal truth.
5) Do you agree that all moral claims are factual errors? If so, does
that mean moral claims have no authority? In not, how would you
deal with the fact-value problem?
I do believe that all moral claims are factual errors since they attribute to
beliefs rather than actual, scientifically proven facts. Moral claims have no
authority but they might and can contribute to the development of theories
than can help a future scientific development, or beliefs that can be back up
by facts.
6) Do you believe amoralists exist?
I do believe that amoralists exist. There are probably have a dissociative
disorder but they exist, and I dont think they are too uncommon. How many
people are in the world that believe poverty is bad but when they walk by a
poor person, they do nothing about it; they look up like nothing is there?