On Hursthouse

Hursthouse states, “I do not assume, or expect, that all of my readers will agree with everything I am about to say. On the contrary, given the plausible assumption that some are morally wiser than I am, and some less so, the theory has built into it that we are bound to disagree on some points.”

I believe that Hursthouse errors in her claim by putting too much weight on experience. I believe that an adult could deduce through reason that a certain action in a certain situation would be a right and wrong, moral and amoral action. Adult, I define as someone who has an understanding of what is moral, one who is responsible, and one who is a self. I believe what embodies a human being is what that human being knows, what actions that human being performs, and how that human performs those actions; in other words, knowledge, courage, and passion. As such, an adult, who has an understanding of what is moral, should reach the same conclusions about the difference of the moral and amoral actions that would be possible in a given situation. As such I believe there should be little to no dissent in questions of moral dilemma or theory and the possibility of such a moral code existing, where multitudes of adults could consistently act, as well as come up with solutions to problems in ways of pure moral and just manner, and the possibility of having a populace where individuals contained a very high knowledge of what it is to be human, the potential of a life, understanding what is just, is something that should be strived for and not balked at.

[John Moriarty - posted by Kelly Sorensen]