User:Forquoi/Moral particularism

Views
Moral principles can be broadly labeled as absolute or contributory. In the case of the former, principles are said to be universal rules governing moral action, such as "it is forbidden to be unkind." Contributory principles differ because they merely contribute to the evaluation of an act, rather than determining if the act is wrong based on the infraction of a single absolute principle.

Rationality
A key feature of rationality is that the rational agent maintains a consistent set of beliefs. In a moral sense, this means that the agent's internal ethical principles cannot contradict in any instance. Particularism rejects that a specific feature of a moral issue can necessarily invoke a certain ethical principle in all cases where the feature occurs, thus it rejects rationality. In response, the particularist may say that consistency is a condition that is meant to prevent the possession of a set of beliefs which cannot be simultaneously true. For example, it would be rationally inconsistent to believe that pain is harmful, that animals do not deserve harm, and that animals deserve pain. If this is the only meaningful way to consider consistency, then to evaluate it differently in the case of moral reasons would be incorrect.

Objections regarding rationality also question the particularist's view on moral knowledge. When a selfish child encounters a situation where they are taught to value generosity, the moral generalist recognizes this as the child acquiring ethical knowledge in order to apply it in the future. Particularism denies this, and argues that acts can be justified by a sort of sense perception. Rather than deducing permissibility from general moral principles, the agent learns to see the salient moral features of a situation in a particular way.