Anweting, Kevin Ibok Department of Philosophy Veritas University, Abuja Anwetingkevin@Yahoo.Ca

Home , Ethical subjectivism

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL MORAL OBJECTIVISM AS A BASIC FOUNDATION AND STANDARD OF HUMAN CONDUCT

Anweting, Kevin Ibok Department of Philosophy Veritas University, Abuja [email protected]

Generally acknowledged accounts of human action firmly recommend that actions must be identified from the first individual point of view, i.e. from the perspective of the reasons that motivate an agent. To this there have been bunches of contention as regards to the standard of human conduct in general. The discussion in which moral disagreement has received most attention is metaethical and concerns the objectivity of ethics. The subjective hypothesis contends that the standard for human action is from a subjective view. Then again some other few speculations have guaranteed that ethical objectivism decides the rightness or unsoundness of our actions. This paper joins the list of long debates on the subject matter. The paper summits that moral objectivism is a basic foundation and determines the rightness or wrongness of our actions corresponding to other theories.

KEYWORDS: Morality, Moral Objectivism, Moral Subjectivism, Human Conduct.

INTRODUCTION For example, many societies believe in moral standard against lying, thief, rape, The debate on morality objectivity as enslavement, murder, child abuse, assault, a standard of morality is a perennial issue in slander, fraud, lawbreaking. All these deals the history of philosophy so much such that with the matter that people feel are quite people tend to equate morality to what serious. People’s moral standards typically society allows or what humans determine. come from many different sources and Morality consists of the standard that influences, including parents, church, school, individual or group has about what is wrong, television, friends, music and association. good or evil. In fact, moral standards are ideal Culture contrast with respect to certain that people try to live up to about what is right ethical activities, in this way there is the need and wrong or good or evil. Generally to find which is correct however cultures are speaking, moral standard bothers on what comparative in regards to the presence and matter to which we attach great importance.

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL the requirement for profound quality. 515). To become a moral objectivist or moral Notwithstanding, for a moral rule to be real absolutist as others would call it, takes the and steady, they should be determined modesty to adhere to the reality that our outside to human social orders. Otherwise, human’s lack of perfection does not imply morality is merely one person’s point of that perfection does not exist. Similarly, the choice or feeling, not an understanding of incomprehensibility of the Absolute objective truth morality that guides human Good/Absolutely Right should not mislead us conduct or actions. into concluding there is only the Relative Good/Relative Right, just because such In this paper, however, we shall concept is easier to grasp and hold on to. This promote the theory of moral objectivism as a I shall do justice to letter in the essay. But for foundation and standard of human conduct or now, let us examine reason moral relativism action. By denying ethical relativism, relating is problematic and cannot serve as a standard inherent human rights, belief system and of human conduct or action. human action or conduct to the necessity of absolute morality and stressing the THE PROBLEMATIC NATURE OF importance of believing in a justified MORAL RELATIVISM proposition in decision-making. Before that, Ethical relativism or moral relativism it is important to know what moral simply rejects the idea of the universality of objectivism means and what it actually moral principles. These principles, according means to become a moral objectivist. Moral to the relativist, are contextual, depending on objectivism states that one and only one either the individual or society (Miller 2011, correct morality exists. Absolutists mean 348). This can be extended into the two having the belief that there exist universal theories of moral relativism, namely, moral principle, unchanging and inflexible Subjectivism and Conventionalism. The standards by which an act can be assessed or position of a subjectivist is that the evaluated to be right or wrong, good or bad, individual, specifically his preferences, is the just or unjust (Manuel Velasquez, 2001. 513). basis of morality. To be moral is to live by It also maintains that validity, truth, of these one’s favoured ideologies, one’s chosen moral principles does not rest on aspects such standards or what one’s feel good after and as social acceptance or cultural norms or even what is immoral is what one feel is bad after individual preferences (Manuel Velasquez,

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL (Sinnott-Armstrong 2006). The subjectivist More so, Subjectivism defeats the seems to argue that feeling guilty, since it essence of morality and moral standard itself. causes one to feel bad, is immoral. Therefore, When a person evaluates his actions based on in other to prevent this ‘immorality’ one must almost everything he pleases to base them, in not hold on to objective moral principle so order to avoid guilt, thus feel good, thus be that he may, every now and then, bend his moral, it will result to the impossibility of evaluative bases and now always feel being wrong. When this happens, moral justified for his actions. The only strength of reflection becomes futile, for it will always this argument, if it can even be considered lead to a ‘justified feeling’ that what has been valid is that it gives the person the freedom to done or what is about to be done, is what is create his own set of values to live by. Indeed, good. Furthermore, ethical subjectivism how can one be considered free if he is makes it impossible to criticize the behavior obligated to do the right thing in this case, the of other persons or cultures. Again, ethical right thing according to objective principles. subjectivism seems to place high value on However, Subjectivism is in itself a tolerance. The fact that a theory approves problematic theory, and also poses a great something good does not imply that the number of faulty consequences if it were to theory is true. The objectivist would agree be accepted by the majority. Regarding with the relativist that tolerance is good and subjectivism as a guarantor of freedom will intolerance bad. However, the objectivist eventually leads to conflict among persons philosophers would say that only they have a demanding their rights to be free to have their right to make this claim, because tolerance is own set of moral principles when these being offered an objective moral standard created ‘moral principle’ begin to overlap that is universally binding. By claiming that with one another and start cancelling out each all ethical opinions are of equal value, the other. Imagine a person who claims that he relativist is in the uncomfortable position of has the freedom to create value system having to tolerate intolerance. If intolerance wherein another person’s entire set of is to be our sole guiding ideal, should we then principles will be totally rejected. It leads to consider the sincere ethical judgment of chaos, which is in no way a manifestation that racists and Nazis to be morally acceptable? Subjectivism is a feasible theory to guide our Conventionalism on the other hand, actions. seems to have a stronger argument for

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL relativism as a standard of moral conduct. It differently at various bases, thus making is not as radical as subjectivism because it morality lose its “conduct or action guiding takes into consideration whether the action is function.” If, however, a relativist will acceptable, whether it follows the norms of suggest that that person can choose a single the society, or whether it is part of the cultural society’s moral code, it is possible that would norms or folkways. Conventionalism lead to a form of subjectivism, since the act assumes the premises: that there is cultural of choosing itself pertains to one’s preference relativism and that morality is dependent on at that particular situation. Having seen culture (Howson 2009, 4). The argument for earlier the detriments of subjectivism and this theory is that it avoids the issue of admitting that at one point, conventionalism ethnocentricity. For conventionalists, it is may turn into subjectivism, ethical relativism only right that we do not interfere with other seems to be a dangerous idea as a guide to cultures’ affairs and impose onto them our human conduct or action. customs. The problem with conventionalism Louis Pojman in his article, Who is to Judge?, can be seen in its implications. First, by rejects ethical relativism by finding fault in accepting the principle of tolerance, one has the implication inherent in it. He refuses to to consider acts like genocides, oppression accept that ethical relativism is an and slavery as morally permissible as long as implication of cultural relativism. According they are in conformity with the culture of that to him, whether cultural relativism is true or particular group of people. Second, it implies not, it does not follow that there can be no that reformers, people who go against objective way of regarding the rightness or cultural standards and who call for change in wrongness of things. It does not successfully the society, are ‘always wrong’ since the denounce the moral objectivist’s view that norms is what is right. Thirdly, the very there is an absolute standard for evaluating notion of society and culture are hard to the morality of actions. An objectivist, he define makes it implausible for society and says, can agree that different cultures have culture to actually become the basis of one’s different moral codes, yet he can still “defend morality. Again, in considering the case of a a form of universalism by arguing that some person who belongs to different societies, if cultures simply lack correct moral principles he were to believe in conventionalism it will (Louise 1997, 241). Pojman rejects the mean that a single act can be judged dependency thesis, which states that morality

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL is culture based. It asserts that what validates the event that we free our psyche with the moral principle is the judgment of the possibility that some have more ideal than society, that what is right is what society others. Saying so is similar to proposing that accepts, and what is wrong is what the society right are human creations, bestowed by does not consider normative. Furthermore, he society or a sovereign to whoever is deems to objected to such proposition that right deserve them, and deprived to those who are morality is relative, saying that adhering to compulsorily inferior and unable to fight for such resembles saying that we determine our theirs. This seems, by all accounts, to be the ethical standards by methods for "simply basic idea of rights made and unequally uncritical acceptance of one’s own mores” appropriated on the grounds that it is what is instead of critically reasoning about it. If we shown at present. In any case, attention has to weigh the Weak Dependency thesis against be called to the fact that rights are not by the Strong Dependency thesis, and question nature, selective. One hypothesis with respect reason, relativist have to maintain the latter, to the legitimization of right is that rights are when the fact shows that such extreme status-based. To give credence to rights does position demotes us into being that simply not mean that every right has to be respected. comply instead of thrive. Pojman thus Or maybe, we think regards for rights is concludes that the existence of objective something to be thankful for exactly on the moral code and principles that are based on a grounds that we think individuals really have common human nature need to solve conflict them and that they have them since it is fitting of interest to flourish. We will in support to that they ought (Cuneo 2013). the moral objectivist’s position, now attempt Furthermore, Proponents of status- to establish the inherent nature of human based rights theorist mostly ground ascription right and its connection to the concept of of rights on individual dignity. They would Absolutism. even go to the extent of saying that, each person’s right imposes side constraints on the MORALITY NECESSITATES pursuit of other goals because the person OBJECTIVITY possesses inviolability that all other must When we discuss ethical morality, we respect (Griffin 2004, 817). Failure to can't abstain from discussing what should be exercise one’s right does not mean that these just. Impartiality nature can be conceivable in rights do not exist. Moreover, a sovereign’s

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL ability to make others inescapable of other factors especially the society and recognizing their rights does not mean that human law, not the other way round. Rights those rights are created by him. It is just a exist even if a person does not belong to a manifestation of abusive tendency of people. society or is not subject to human law. Now In many examples presented by ethical believing in the inherent nature of our rights, relativism, infringement of basic human right we must therefore accept the objectivism of is clearly present. By saying that an act can these rights. They don’t change from person, be assessed based on the society’s or from society to society. Everyone has the acceptance, then eradicating a whole race for same rights as everybody else, for ones the dominance of one’s own power for existence is objective as a logical or example in the case of war or terrorism, or mathematical statement. Establishing so, we enslaving a whole nation because one’s have to reason to doubt that morality is society believes it to be right must be objective. By accepting that there is at least considered as an act of goodness. Basic rights one thing that can possibly be objectively like right to life, right to choose one’s violated and objectively recognized, we can religion, right to property or right to live say that there is absolute good by which my peacefully are apparently violated. act maybe evaluated (Sattaur 2012, 350). Furthermore, moral relativism testifies these Whenever we talk of morality, we grave rights violations. Rights, then, will be also cannot avoid taking into consideration treated merely as part of a person which he or the reason by which our action is done. Belief she may do away with. However, this is not is a great contribution to many actions the case. Rights are not supposed to be individuals commit. In fact, majority of our determined by the cultural environment we conduct is influenced by our beliefs. grow up in or the society in which we are Therefore, with this foundation, this presently dwelling. These rights are not contribution, must itself be assessed. We will supposed to be subject to any other person’s therefore access the belief formation as a verdict. As human being we have these guide to our conduct or actions. rights, and by doing away with them, we lose part of our being human. It is a form of A STANDARD BELIEF FORMATION dehumanization to have inherent rights which AS GUIDE TO HUMAN CONDUCT OR are not being recognized. Right triumph all ACTION

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL To be justified in having beliefs, one traditions and socially accepted practices as must be entitled to those beliefs. William automatically right, shows how one neglects Cliffort claims that there is an ethics to his or her capacity and obligations, to finding believing, that makes all believing without truth in this world, to believing it and to sufficient evidence immoral (Clifford and having it and to allow ones actions to be Madigan 1999). He says that a person has the guided by it. William Sumner says that right to belief in any proposition without morals come down to us from the past; each properly justifying it by means of adequately is subjected to the influence of the societal providing evidence for it being true. This is beliefs and formed by them before we are at the heart of evidentialism and may seem capable of reasoning about them (Sommers irrelevant to the position of moral 2001). Without reasoning, one cannot see the objectivism. However, Cliffort’s position flaws in the correct belief system. Belief creates a significant implication on the way systems are bases for the morals of society, beliefs are being held today. In the event that so what the society would consider the norm it is unethical to put stock in anything without are what it believes to be right. Thus, without adequate confirmation how much more if we evaluating one's convictions, the standard of are to accept without attempting to legitimize a society would most likely be flawed. It it (Clifford and Madigan 1999). would be linked to claiming that all individuals and all societies have been acting The societal norms and cultural traditions are in accordance to the right guidelines (belief often in the form of the ‘ought’ and ‘ought system). Having said this, we can again not’ such that these are usually supplied to the maintain that morality is objective because members of the particular society or culture. there is a right way of forming our beliefs and Individuals do not try scrutinizing the belief therefore, right actions which would be framework of their culture. So long as caused by these beliefs. Having analyzed individuals adhere to folkways, he is moral. belief system as guide to human action it is In the event that he is deviant, he is viewed as pertinent therefore for us to do justice to immoral. As humans, it is our function to moral objectivism as the bases and standard rationalize. Completely following what the of human conduct. society tells us to do or believing on whatever culture has already suggested to us, is a form of irresponsible existence. Regarding

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL MORAL OBJECTIVISM AS A and idea similar to Immanuel Kant’s ‘Law of FOUNDATION AND STANDARD OF Nature’. Kant ground his concept in a priori HUMAN CONDUCT (ACTION) practical human reason, which Lewis identifies in imago Dei within human nature. Morality must be objectively derived. Kant's categorical imperative demands that The concept of good and morality exist. The morality depends on substantial impersonal existence of the good argues for something in principle, in the intrinsic worth of right itself, human society that is different than the upon which every human should act. To duty, existence of animals or the wolves. Thus the every other motive must give place, because nature of humanity is somewhat different we duty is the condition of the good itself whose realize that specific standards and activities worth transcends everything (Kitcher 2004, are great and adequate and essential for 557). These principles if acted upon existence. We ponder the conceptual idea of rationally would then bring about harmony, moral principle itself and the all universality and harmony to social interactions. Any fully of such thought. All human cultures does rational person would necessarily recognize have exactly the same moral codes, but all the good and act according to the imperatives cultures have variations of moral code (Rippon 2014, 783). Kant insists that the (Shapiro 2006, 357). This concept of the point of morality is the principle not the nature of humanity argues for the code of frailty or inconsistencies of human nature. morality that fits all people; we seek it, we believe it; we feel that we need it. There is a possible existence of absolute moral standard or value. Glaucon in Plato’s Human culture does tend to agree about the Republic, suggests the need for convention in same moral ideas, such as murder of one’s order to function (Santas 2008), that is, for own people, cruelty except against enemies, humans and society to function. But this rape and other violent actions which force notion requires awareness that humans must one person’s will upon another. The fact that have some kind of restraints or we will likely there is agreement seems to indicate a destroy ourselves. Why is this so? Social common source of moral conscience, a Darwinism proposes that humans are like standard to which all humans attempt to animals and the strongest achieve their adhere. C S. Lewis called this idea the ‘Moral perennial ends. Might makes right. If this law or natural law of morality (Flax 2007), notion were the case, humans would not be

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL aware of ideas like equality, fairness, naturalism. If naturalism is true, objective discrimination, injustice, oppression and so right and wrong do not exist (Peacock 1972). on. We will just live and die like other Craig says that without God there is no animals, because that’s just the way things objective right or wrong. If naturalism exists, are. No one will propose alternatives. then we cannot condemn war, oppression or crime. Some actions may not be socially Some Eastern thinkers believe that chaotic advantageous, but cannot be called crime or moral behavior result from disharmony in the wrong. Craig argues that Taylor and functioning of the universe. But what makes naturalism defines morality as social skill, a person violates this harmony? What force but such skill can develop cruelty as well as creates harmony that makes one kindness. With Taylor’s naturalism no one is malfunction? Christian philosophers would morally obliged to be virtuous. Nietzsche say that human sin is the problem; the reason defines his own virtue but became self- people act to harm themselves and others. centered, elitist and cold hearted, which God’s law provides the constraint that allows Taylor condemns (Leiter 2002). Plato’s societies to function and good things to philosopher-king reflects similar non- happen in the world. egalitarian preferences for one type of human However, Richard Taylor believes that over another. Equality of worth and value do people can be ‘good’ without God or any not logically emerge from naturalism for divinely-given external standard. He humans. Again, there is external authority indicates that people know, there are reasons that dictates some behavior, such as the for not stealing, there are reasons for not system of laws in a country, enforce by police assaulting, and there are reasons for not lying. and courts. The existence of this authorities These things hurt people (Peacock 1972). If to direct how people ought to conduct their there is no standard why does pain matter? lives, presupposes the place of objectivism as People suffer pain. If there is no moral a guide to human conduct or action. standard why do we not just accept that the Relativism we know does not work. strongest, ‘fittest,’ will survive, where the Somewhere in the course of human affairs, force or whatever is necessary. people who have conflicting values will William Craig believes that collide, who, then, get to behave the way they naturalism does not provide a sound basis for want to?

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL Legitimate moral principle that guide realities of moral virtues as well as the human conduct to a good act must be derived mandate that humans should be morally external to human preferences. The fact that virtuous according to an objective pattern. societies differ, does not mean that there is no Similarly, no one can be sure that his personal absolute moral principle that is the basis of preference of morals is the correct one. No human actions. One cannot combine several humanity-derived systems of morality can be different moral systems into one completely certain of truth and right. We do make errors relative one. Each of the different societies in judgment and discernment. The force has one system, not any of them have a which motivates the objectivist is that truth relative one. and right thing must be done, the Plato, however, is one of the advocates and transcendent standard commands and supporters of objective morality being the requires it whether there be sanction against guide of human actions Book 6: The those who disobey or reward for obedient. Republic. The external forms are not Intrinsically human nature recognizes the changeable, a fixed external standard that need to be moral and good; if the standard applies to everyone (Santas 2008). Aquinas’ points the way and insists by its very morality is grounded in principles that are existence that humans are bound by its tenets, fixed in nature, discernible through reason then resistance to the standard brings and were planted in nature by God as a negative sanctions where obedience produces reflection of His Character as Being. All social and personal well-being. Supporting human laws are judged in reference to these this line of thought Immanuel Kant notes (Santas 2008). Some scholars think that, in that: naturalism, emotions are simply motivators . . . unless we wish to deny all connected with the need of the being and truth to the concept of these needs provoke the motions, and thus the morality and renounce its being acts. All well and good if we think only implication to any possible humans are involved, but animals have no object, we cannot refuse to such motivators and why would humans have admit that the law of this them if we are simply advanced beings in the concept (reason which food chain? Christian ethics, as well as most determine a priori the will to religious philosophers, recognizes the

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL duty) is of such broad approached, satisfied and obeyed. The ideas significance that it . . . must be of living after death, the necessity for valid with absolute necessity redemption or absolution of personal sin, and not merely under sacrifice and prayer would be wholly contingent conditions and unnecessary and unthinkable if humans lived with exception (Kant 1999). like animals, like naturalism implies. We practice religion because somehow we know Kant’s refutes and criticizes the subjectivists there is something or someone else, greater concerns about the limitations and restriction than us, to whom we owe allegiance and of and objective standard and indicated that obedience. such concerns reveals the “imperfectly rational being” who only feels constrained by CONCLUSION commands which are necessary From our studies thus far, we have manifestations of the principle rather than brought to the fore that relative or subjective imposition on an unwilling being who can morality cannot be the standard of human individually decide which actions they action. However, moral objectivism should take (Robinson 1990). Truth and right determines the rightness or wrongness of an does exist objectively and this influences actor of our actions. In following this line of human actions. Nonetheless, the very thought I wish to bring to credence as a way existence of religion provokes a strong of conclusion Plato’s assertion of objectivity argument for the existence of objective of values, through his notion of form morality as a sole determinant of man’s (Anderson 2012). Goodness is perfect, conduct or action. Humans seem constrained whereas our good action change and are not to worship something, to submit to a greater consistently good or perceived as good. But power, to conceive of an external, the idea, the Form of Good persists in our supernatural Being and conceive of this knowledge and awareness (Wolfsdorf 2011). Being in certain ways. The belief that Christian philosopher identifies this inherent morality requires God is not limited to knowledge with the Imago Dei, the built in theists, however. Many atheists subscribe to recognition of the essential goodness of God. it as well (Irwin 2013). Besides this Cudworth asserts that, human mind contain conception, we have exhibited similar the imprint of divine wisdom and knowledge notions of how this Being must be

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL which is objective (Gill 2004). Human http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707 nature, his experiences and life recognize the 071587 existence of the idea of objective morality as Gill, M. B. (2004). Rationalism, a basic determinant, rightness and wrongness Sentimentalism, and Ralph of man’s activities over the weakness of Cudworth. Hume Studies, 30(1), 149– moral subjectivism. Moral objectivism as a 181. standard form imperative is inherent in http://doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.024 human nature and is the basic foundation and 3 standard of human conduct, without which Griffin, Z. M. (2004). The eyes are right relativism would be a sole determinant of when the mouth is wrong. human conduct which would leave us with no Psychological Science, 15(12), 814– morality at all. 821. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956- 7976.2004.00761.x

Howson, A. (2009). Cultural Relativism. REFERENCES EBSCO Research Starters, 1–5. Anderson, W. (2012). Objectivity and its http://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2000.0027 Discontents. Social Studies of Irwin, T. H. (2013). Sympathy and the Basis Science, 43(4), 557–576. of Morality. In A Companion to http://doi.org/10.1177/03063127124 George Eliot (pp. 277–293). 55732 http://doi.org/10.1002/97811185423 Clifford, W. K., & Madigan, T. J. (1999). The 47.ch20 ethics of belief: and other essays. Kant, I. (1999). The cambridge edition of the New York: Prometheus Books. works of Immanuel Kant. Philosophy Cuneo, T. (2013). Justice: Rights and (Vol. 74). Wrongs. Philosophical Review (Vol. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819199 122). 000212 http://doi.org/10.1177/09539468093 Kitcher, P. (2004). Kant’s Argument for the 59461 Categorical Imperative. Nous, 38(4), Flax, J. (2007). Psychology and the Natural 555–584. Law of Reparation. Perspectives on http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0029- Politics (Vol. 5). 4624.2004.00484.x

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL Leiter, B. (2002). Nietzsche on Morality. http://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1990.005 Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to: 9 Nietzsche on Morality. Santas, G. (2008). The Blackwell Guide to http://doi.org/0-203-75082-9 Plato’s Republic. The Blackwell Louise Pojman, Who’s to Judge?. In Vice and Guide to Plato’s Republic. Virtue in Everyday Life: Introductory http://doi.org/10.1002/97804707764 Reading in Ethics 4th ed., USA: 14 Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997, Santas, G. (2008). The Blackwell Guide to p 241. Plato’s Republic. The Blackwell Madigan, P. (2014). Aquinas on Friendship. Guide to Plato’s Republic. Heythrop Journal, 55(2), 319. http://doi.org/10.1002/97804707764 http://doi.org/10.1215/00318108- 14 2009-006 Sattaur, J. (2012). Thinking Objectively: An Miller, C. B. (2011). Moral Relativism and Overview of “Thing Theory” in Moral Psychology. In A Companion Victorian Studies. Victorian to Relativism (pp. 346–367). Literature and Culture, 40(1), 347– http://doi.org/10.1002/97814443924 357. 94.ch18 http://doi.org/10.1017/S1060150311 Peacock, E. (1872). Richard taylor. Notes 000428 and Queries. Shapiro, P. (2006). Moral agency in other http://doi.org/10.1093/nq/s4- animals. Theoretical Medicine and X.254.372-b Bioethics, 27(4), 357–373. Rippon, S. (2014). Were Kant’s hypothetical http://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-006- imperatives wide-scope ought? 9010-0 Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Moral 92(4), 783–788. Skepticisms. Moral Skepticisms. http://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.201 http://doi.org/10.1093/0195187725.0 4.915576 01.0001 Robinson, H. (1990). Kant’s Copernican Sommers, C., & Sommers, F. (2001). Vice Revolution (review). Journal of the and virtue in everyday life: History of Philosophy (Vol. 28).

SOCIAL LANDSCAPE JOURNAL Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, FIS-UNM e-ISSN: 2721-236X ojs.unm.ac.id/SL introductory readings in ethics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College. Wolfsdorf, D. (2011). Plato’s Conception of Knowledge. Classical World, 105(1), 57–75. http://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2011.0115 Velasquez, M., Philosophy: A Text with Readings, London: Thomas Learning, 2001.