Nicole Newell

IT-228
10 April 2015
Violating an Institution
As living, thinking creatures it is no question as to why humans are so infatuated with the
topic of morality. People spend hours, days and even lifetimes trying to justify the distinction
between what labels our actions as being good versus being bad. Before answering this infamous
question, it is imperative that all responses comply with the Minimum Conception of Morality.
This core structure requires that all moral judgments are to be backed by reason and are to be
based on objective criteria rather than including any bias. However, some moral philosophies do
not follow these fundamental principals. Cultural Relativism, Ethical Subjectivism, Divine
Command Theory, Natural Law Theory and Ethical Egoism all present flaws and challenges in
their reasoning by failing to abide by the standards of the Minimum Conception of Morality.
The first philosophy that displays these imperfections is known as the Divine Command
Theory. Those who follow this way of thought are adamant that the nature of right and wrong is
entirely dependent on the word of God. Although believers insist on this way of thinking, the
problems with this theory outweigh any chance at validity. These points are indefensible because
the reasons are not sound and therefore violate the Minimum Conception of Morality. For
example if there were no God, would specified acts still be considered as wrong or right? That
question alone fails to produce reliable reasoning as well as the fact that Atheists would also
outright reject the claim.
Since reliable reasoning is so detrimental to a sound moral philosophy, it is crucial for
each theory to depend on ones justifications in order to make a sound argument. Another theory
that fails to adhere to the MCMs standard of reason is Simple Subjectivism. Just as it sounds,

this proposition is simple and suggests that the motive behind our words stems from whether we
approve or disapprove of what is being discussed. This form of thinking does not allow for
educational arguments and ultimately would dictate that being wrong is impossible. Because this
does not recognize reasoning as an option to provide explanations for our way of thought, it is
not a sound moral philosophy and therefore is not able to provide a dependable theory.
This inaccurate way of thinking is also present in the next theory, Ethical Egoism. While
most people would agree that we as a society have a moral duty to one another, this theory
rejects that claim and states that each person is solely interested in their individual being. This
fails to comply with MCMs requirement of impartiality. Since one can individually benefit in
treating another person badly, this theory is flawed and should instead demand fair standards.
Coincidentally, those who conclude this theory as fact are contradicting their own beliefs.
Because Ethical Egoism is concerned with being interested in ourselves to promote everyones
best interest, they are in fact thinking of the other people that are supposedly held as no concern.
It is clear that the theories straying from the MCM guidelines end up broken and faulty.
However, there are also lists of theories that pose challenges because of pure faults in logic. One
that exemplifies this inaccuracy is the Natural Law Theory. This is based on the notion that the
world was created with values and purposes built into every aspect of nature. From the rain
falling from the sky, to man made objects, they must serve their natural purpose under this theory
or else they are considered to be wrong. The fallacies are hard to miss especially since we are
unaware of who is to say what the intended purpose of anything is. This theory also presents two
completely different ideas while using what is the case and what ought to be the case
simultaneously. These logical flaws undermine the proposition this theory presents and makes it
rather simple for one to object.

3
Similarly, the next theory poses a equivalent problem. Cultural Relativism proposes the

notion that different cultures possess different moral codes. While one may believe this to be
true, this perception allows for one another to overstate the differences of each culture and
downplay the commonalities. While our beliefs might differ, our morals do not. The problems
arise when questions such as what if the culture is accustomed to favor intolerance are asked.
While cultures are unique in their own way, their conceptions of right and wrong are shockingly
indistinguishable. If one were to take this theory seriously, the logical flaws reject critique of the
codes of other societies and make this premise imprecise and unreliable.
After careful exploration of the fundamental principals of the Minimum Conception of
Morality, it is no wonder why they are so vital to moral institutions. Each theory presented
lacked both an objective criteria and reason and further exploration makes it clear as to why they
are in need of both in order to be sound. In order to defend and critique the Ethical concepts, the
theories need to meet the tenets of the Minimum Conception of Morality and only then can we
begin the effort to determine the distinction between right and wrong.

4
Bibliography

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1986.
Print.