Question

As was discussed in the opening chapter and discussion, one basic difference in ethical views is between transcendent ethical theories (ethical principles are fixed and absolute and universal) and contingent theories (ethics is simply part of our changing natural lives). Intuitionists (like Ross) are generally in the transcendent camp, while those (like Hume) who emphasize feelings usually favor contingent ethics. Does that basic difference in perspectives explain the difference between intuitionists and feelings theorists? That is, do intuitionists and feelings theorists have the same experience, but just interpret it differently?

Answer 1

One of the most important things about ethics is that it’s related to the culture and society in which they are practiced and it’s also subject to the test of time which would mean that as time pass by ethical stand point would also change. Another important factors that would determine ethical thinking is that it would depend on one’s experience and exposure because as people mature and become wiser, they would start to see things in a more different perspective than ordinary people. So, in my opinion, transcendent ethical theorists and contingent theorists take different perspectives for the fact that contingent theorists are more open towards experience and exposure thus would change their ethical stand depending on the evoked feelings but transcendent ethicists would struggle hard to overcome their own restrictions as they are fixed with only one perspective which would make them blind and closed minded.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.