“Violence is morally wrong.” How would intuitionist, realist and relativist analyze this moral statement?

 Hours after the terrorist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris on January 7th, 2015, the US President Barack Obama, condemned the “cowardly, evil..and senseless attacks” perpetrated by the men who murdered twelve people. Leaders throughout the western world expressed similar sentiments. It is common for politicians to represent the perpetrators of violence as acting outside the boundaries of morality; their actions belong to an incomprehensible realm beyond our understanding of what is good and right. But the Charlie Hebdo killers were not acting at random-they were following a moral code.

We don’t need to approve of their moral framework to understand that it exists and guides their behavior, and that understanding can bring us insights into the psychology of violence that we miss if we simply dismiss it as evil.  Generally speaking, we think of most interpersonal violence, not just terrorist attacks, as immoral. It’s very rare that you’ll see anybody claim that hurting someone else is an inherently moral thing to do.

When people are violent, explanations for their behavior tend to invoke some sort of breakdown: a lack of self-control, the dehumanization of an “outgroup.” or perhaps sadistic psychological tendencies. This is a comforting notion – one that draws a clear boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

But according to the authors of a new book, it simply isn’t an accurate reflection of how people actually behave: morality, as understood and practiced by real-world human beings, doesn’t always prohibit violence.  In fact they make the case that most violence is motivated by morality.

Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)