Assignment 4

Are Nagel and Thoreau right? Can there be universal moral ideals, while,

at the same time, our individual consciences are authoritative arbiters of

right and wrong?

The two excerpts from Thoreau and Nagel seek both to address the same issue of morality. Can there be universal moral ideals? In comparison, Thoreau acts more optimistic and depicts the issue as a pre-construct path without the possibility of occurring obstacles, whereby Nagel observes many bumpers on the road and many complications flourishing from the ground. In addition, Nagel indicates the personal struggle and influences occurring with the rightness of morality. In contrast Thoreau relies on human nature that will lead to true moral path and may not repressed by the way of life. He offers a comparison of the savages stopping cannibalism the same way humans will stop continue carnivorousness- immorality. Nagel invested some of his time to determine the existence of a universal true moral; therefore he conducted in experiments regarding morality. His question revealed the same responses throughout different objects. In result Nagel has evidence for the existence of a universal moral.

In the next paragraph a general definition of universal moral truth is offered.

A universal truth morality is the foundation in which our society is embedded, a foundation from which human values and standards derive- it does not change like clothes or seasons. Furthermore, if the morality was right 3000 thousand years ago it will still have the same rightness today. Nonetheless, one would think that morality changes through different cultures, but this is wrong, because it appears not right because the culture claims it is and vice versa. For example, we identify what is right and wrong early on through our cultures, but the aim is to identify the rightness of the decision. Just because a culture defines morality different, it doesn’t conclude that morality is relative. In a matter of fact, there is no culture that defines true moral culture.

Individual arbitrary choices have no influence of the universal moral ideals. Same as above mentioned just because one acts in a particular way and reasons emotional, it is not an assurance of right morality. If there exist one universal moral truth, it surely abides no influence of emotions or changing values. However, morality sets universal principles that count for all cultures and should be discovered through a collective.

If we assume Nagel and Thoreau are right, the above mentioned facts need to count. In addition, the theory of an universal moral ideal would include the faith in a superior power that sets the foundation. The existence of a universal moral truth is not imaginable without a system that constructs boundaries and sets rules in this complex topic. Otherwise there would be no point in believing in morality - a truth believer needs a reference to faith that is identified through the existence in god.