Explain disagreement appealing to moral facts


Problem 1: Imagine that Jaime asserts, "Stealing is always morally wrong!" while Lena asserts, "Stealing is not always wrong!"  Do you think that these two people actually disagree?  If not, then why do you think it seems to most people that there is a real disagreement here?  If so, then how do suppose they might resolve this disagreement without resorting to moral subjectivism?

Problem 2: Do you think we could explain their disagreement appealing to moral facts?  In other words, is it possible that Jaime and Lena actually disagree about something here, but in such a way that we can say that neither of their views is more 'true' or 'correct' than the other?  How would this work?

Request for Solution File

Ask an Expert for Answer!!
Other Subject: Explain disagreement appealing to moral facts
Reference No:- TGS03297741

Expected delivery within 24 Hours