Introduction The debate on the moral argument is unending, as Stich (2012), states that the disagreement arising from the debate on the topic is unending. This disagreement leads to some scholars stating that Moral claim is unreal and a basis of “wrong belief”. These however are not across every part of the debate considering the dynamism of morality. This writing explains the Meaning of moral claims; the objections of moral claims; the responses to the objections and the arising implications. Through these meanings, it is clear how the disagreement continues to factor in as more questions get asked.Meaning Moral claims are statements made by people concerning actions, defining the actions as “right” or “good”. These way the person states how right or how wrong the action is, based on his knowledge or societal position on moral standards. These means that an action deemed not up to standard is “immoral.” Moral claim, on the other hand, is a sign of appreciation or disgust. These means where a person, a community, or a group of people, find an action admirable; the action becomes morally right to that particular group or person. However, when an action becomes disgusting, the action is immoral or morally wrong. An example of this is a girl getting married in the church. Most people in the Christian community view that marriage as morally right while the same action of marriage where two decide to stay together without the consent of the church is, viewed as morally wrong. In both cases, the girl is married, and the result is the same though one is seen to bring appreciation, and the other is disgusting to the Christians community. Moral claim is also an establishment of recommendation. These means that when a person states an action is moral he or she is recommending the action is acceptable. While if the same person states that an action is immoral then she or he is recommending that the action is unacceptable. An example is when a parent tells his son stealing Is morally wrong he is stating that stealing action is not acceptable. This way the father uses the moral claim to recommend an acceptable action to the son by pointing out the unacceptable action. The society or religion, on the other hand, is the source of most moral claims. The reason being most people use moral statements to assert what is, societal values. For example, when a mother tells her daughter not to wear a skimpy dress, in order not to look cheap. The mother on her part is explaining how the society views the action of dressing in short skimpy dress as immoral. In other words, a person dressing in clothes that are well fitting, is morally right according to the society or religion. Similarly, the same can be said where a religion or society prohibits certain actions. An example of this is spanking, while parents may punish their children for wrongdoing their action can be, viewed as moral or immoral based on what the religion states or society states. A parent who beats up a child violently may be, viewed as immoral according to the society. While a parent who does not spank his child may also be, viewed as immoral according to religion. These make religion and society the main source of what we view as moral or immoral claim.Objections Moral claim stands on shaky ground. Most scholars point at many faults in moral claim. James (1960), states morality is based on believes, which are in many cases based on unscientific grounds. These means the argument of whether morals can only be right or wrong cannot get justified. Main reason to this argument is the belief that results get determined by actions that are either wrong or right is not accounted. James (1960), further observes that there many things that we cannot assure their results by simply stating “action” will cause results that will eventually stand as right or wrong. This argument that is further clarified by James (1960) states that in some points it is morally and rationally acceptable to believe a moral statement because of the benefits. These Brings forward an independent and pragmatic objection, insensitive to sense or truth in its quest to show that morals are the result of the belief and not empirical evidence. On his part Stich (2012), bases his argument on moral realism. He chooses to question the very structures of right and wrong by questioning existence. On his objection to the moral claim Stich (2012), states that moral disagreement cannot be solved simply because morality itself is a source of contentment. Further stating his objections, Stich (2012), points out that unless we have a moral belief that we can all agree on, moral realism becomes false in the same instant. The objection on moral reality bases itself on the argument that our beliefs do not base on justifiable reality. Instead, they are the products of what we claim we know. We can claim we know and stand by our statements even when our statements are proven unworthy. However, one can state his statement is as a result of a higher power which cannot get proved nullifying the claim. Additionally another objection is based on moral facts, Stich (2012), states that by agreeing to rejecting moral realism equally we are open to the fact moral realism doesn’t exist. Simply because we would then have to agree that moral opinions are open to questioning and disagreement. The result would, therefore, be inability to justify our argument basis because it would be, sourced from moral belief, which is not subjective. Rachels & Rachels (2012), observes that different cultures follow different moral order. As a result Rachels & Rachels (2012), asserts that whether morality is right or wrong is all an issue of opinion which is different in diverse cultures. The reason for this view is the lack of objectivity in the claim. The result of such a claim is unknown and not subjective. While Rachels & Rachels (2012), makes this claim he goes ahead to show the fallacy behind the same claim. This he does by pointing out the fact of differences is, not based on luck of grounded value judgments or truth.Response Countering his argument Rachels & Rachels (2012), asserts where this argument is true then it can be, said that the behavior of two different cultures should not be judged externally but internally. These would mean a man on the wrong for beating a wife would not be guilty of assault if his culture supports wife beating. With these in mind, I would agree that the cultural explanation is insufficient. Reason being if we followed through with Rachels & Rachels (2012), objections the result would be we would get forbidden from criticizing others. Without such interventions, slavery might still be present, however, through criticism it is possible to stop the calamity. The argument held by Stich (2012), on moral disagreement that questions realism of morality assumes that facts that are immoral have to justify facts that are moral. This assumption is not true reason being my personal experience of pain is “bad”, and thus it is based on the moral fact itself. The fact that an action led to pain that was “bad”. Morally my belief of pain is bad is not accounted for by my non-moral belief. Therefore, it cannot be, stated as Stich (2012), puts it that my moral claim is unjustifiable. Equally, my belief that in me are thoughts cannot be, based on non-mental facts alone while all the underlined objections point at huge disagreement. The level of disagreement is all is not as it seems. Most moral values get based on cultural or societal values and utility. However, each diverse culture links to the other cultures through similarities. These way few people are involved in disagreement as they agree on many things and disagree to far less. An example of this is the Eskimo, who believes in infanticide a practice that is morally wrong according to many. However, apart from these extremes the Eskimo links to the other cultures with only minor differences applications of actions.Implications Bearing in mind that moral claim is, based on personal appreciation, societal values, societal utility, recommendations, and religion. The major implication is that moral claim only draws out even more moral disagreement. These leads to further disagreement of whether, the moral claim exists in the first place. Concerning the issue of appreciation, the levels of appreciation vary from one person to another or one community. These make it impossible to draw out a conclusion that would further explain moral claim. Reason being to come to a conclusive statement, morality would have to be, measured by measuring the levels of appreciation. When measuring appreciation, we should bear in mind; appreciation can be, affected by expectation. These factors alone points at gaps within the debate, which would be beneficial to study to establish objectiveness of the ethics study. The definition presented states how religion and culture are, connected to a moral claim. However, like appreciation both religion and culture base on immeasurable factors that only push the debate further in disbelief of the existence of a moral reality. However, the same is true for the supporters of moral claim as it is evident that the moralists would get further thrown in the opposite direction. Using the same factors supporters of the moral claim debate would establish new positions of truth and reality.Conclusion Moral claim existence is a fact under serious contention. Reason being moral claim gives way to further questions instead of answers. As James, stich, and Rachel point out their objections, it is clear that the moral claim moves to both extremes of the continuum. In one extreme moral claim is, identified by belief of “know how”. At the other extreme Moral, claim remains under contention.
References
James, W. (1960). The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy, and Human immortality. New York: Dover Publications.
Rachels, S. & Rachels, J. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stich, S. (2012). Collected papers. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
