The article “The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe” by Williams (2015) concentrated on the argument that today's society is unknowingly responsible for severe and large-scale wrongdoings. The author explores the morality associated with two major human-inflicted disasters in history which are, the American institutionalized slavery and the Holocaust. While exploring the topic, Williams offers two perspectives, inductive and disjunctive standpoints. When Williams takes on inductive reasoning, he argues that the majority of societies are unknowingly guilty of actions today, as well as in the past.
Concerning the disjunctive rationale, on the other hand, he claims some decisions may have adverse consequences. Williams also provides recommendations to help people cope with the ongoing moral catastrophes, mainly rooted in slavery in America and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Overall, in this paper, I will give rational objections to the argument presented in the article to show why it is faulty. (Exposition)According to Williams, there are two perspectives to the ongoing moral catastrophes. Based on an inductive viewpoint, the author recaps past events, mainly slavery and the Holocaust to project what will happen in the future. During the Holocaust, the majority of Nazi Party supporters believed it was right to kill Jews for their beliefs rejecting Christianity.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The individual who proposed the killing of Jews “had the false moral belief that genocide was the just and proper punishment for the crime of rejecting Jesus” (Williams, 2015). From this, most populations of past societies unknowingly took part in some ongoing moral catastrophes. From the disjunctive standpoint, however, the author offers a different perspective on the issue. He states that there are numerous ways in which society might be wrong about today's moral practices and beliefs. For instance, a person may be wrong about what constitutes morality, health, or expectations for the future. As such, each event is independent thus, one should reflect on its results.
On a final note, the author offers two recommendations. First, he identifies the significance of identifying wrongdoings. If there is a moral issue, the best way to cope with it is to classify it as wrong. In this way, 'we will be able to correct our policies intelligently, rather than stumbling around blindly' (Williams, 2015). Society should use a moral theory, as well as scientific methods to solve issues. Secondly, a nation ought to implement the approved values like the norms and laws related to the subject. In doing this, we must be flexible by taking all necessary actions necessary to resolve an ethical issue. However, in impoverished areas, their situation can influence what is done since most citizens are too busy trying to survive to be flexible. (Philosophical Response)The ongoing moral catastrophe Williams presents in the article is valid. In response to this, I will offer objections to the recommendations presented in his text to show why they are faulty. In my opinion, his goal was to raise awareness about the challenge of ongoing moral catastrophes versus detailed policy recommendations or plans. To start, he claims that to resolve the issue, a society should identify wrongdoings and correct them with policies.
My objection stems from the fact that wrongdoings may stem from multiple kinds of moral uncertainties. Instead, the author says it is a result of merely an event that happened in the past. By doing this, he is not appreciative of these features. When identifying an issue, it is necessary to consider the events of the past. The prevailing uncertainties are also very important because they affect a moral principle. It is, therefore, possible to end an ongoing moral catastrophe, especially by getting input from the public. The other objection stems from the second recommendation. Williams says that society should focus on improving values, including laws and norms in every way necessary to deal with the problem. He further notes that we ought to build a resilient society to accommodate the change. I am opposed to this observation because of the argument that increasing social flexibility may completely ruin the norms of the population. Reasonably, if it becomes too easy to change and adapt to a new value system, society contributes more to the issue of moral catastrophe instead of resolving it. For instance, in the era of American slavery, William points out that the institutionalization of the practice allegedly “ruined” the souls of the perpetrators. This aspect contributed to the perpetrator’s brutality towards slaves, including beating, branding, and chaining among the countless other horrible actions that slave masters carried out.
Stuck on your essay?
