Moral Particularism, at its most trenchant, is the claim that there are no defensible moral principles, that moral thought does not consist in the application of moral principles to cases, and that the morally perfect person should not be conceived as the person of principle. There are more cautious versions, however.

What is the trenchant version, if there are no morally perfect persons?

Is it enough to say that every moral system has intuitive flaws, and so none is complete without intuitive reappraisal? What else is needed?

Perhaps moral particularism solves this dilemma for moral discourse, rather than knowledge etc.?

By intuition I mean a belief that, even if you might be able to argue for it from some perspective, you don't need to, to justify belief in it. By moral system I mean meta-ethical views like deontology (its conformist) or utilitarianism (it's idealist).

  • This is no different than characterizing any other value system by presenting a (non-achievable, but approximable) ideal. Moral particularist makes situational moral judgments according to conscience without deriving any specific prescriptions from ethical generalities, in line with the general idea of virtue ethics. Impractical, of course, but no more impractical than Kant's duty maximalist or Nietzsche's Übermensch. – Conifold May 15 '19 at 3:56
  • do you have a reference for that claim @Conifold ? – user38026 May 15 '19 at 18:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy