عنوان مقاله [English]
The resolution of moral conflicts is the goal of any moral theory that puts an emphasis on the existence of absolute elements in moral judgments. Since deontological theories in ethics insist on the existence of absolute judgments and agent-independent obligations, they are concerned with the resolution of such conflicts more than any other theory. Various philosophical traditions, both continental and analytical, seek to solve the problem with their own methods. Maurice Mandelbaum, an American analytic philosopher, has devised and elaborated an independent ethical system from the viewpoint of moral phenomenological experience, taking the practical aim of his philosophy to be the resolution of moral conflicts. He takes the origins of such conflicts to be cognitive factors affecting the way a moral judgment is formed. Although such factors cannot always be overcome, we can consider certain principles that are phenomenologically helpful in many cases, although they are not absolute. In this point of view, principles that are helpful for the resolution of moral conflicts and disputes consist in the “principle of the priority of facts,” the “principle of universality,” and the “principle of teleology.” Given these principles, we seek to provide a criterion for the resolution for moral disagreements beyond any specific normative theory, justifying these principles given the beliefs and facts from which moral judgments inevitably arise. In this paper, we will briefly explain common solutions, especially in the deontological tradition, and then evaluate Mandelbaum’s solutions.