This briefing paper will focus on the works of Stephen Lukes, Susan Wolf, and Sir I. Berln to examine their arguments on moral conflict. Therefore for Lukes, moral conflict can not be separated from making sense of them as it could be due to ignorance or error of the social pathology . While, Wolf argues that the plurality of values or principles that are relevant to moral judgment are grounded in either relativism or subjectivism or a combination of both . She further questions whether pluralism is actually an appropriate paradigm for dealing with moral conflicts, given that some conflicts just can be resolved within the paradigm, such as Indigenous claims for real justice for the stolen generations. Similarly, Berln argues that for moral conflict to be just it should be premised on the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society . Therefore each academic is able to facilitate a debate about moral conflict by focuses on either the power behind the moral conflict, the individual and community thought processes and natural rights discourse.
These methodologies highlight that moral disagreement is inevitable in western societies as the multitude of beliefs and values results in injustice.
For Lukes there is no real moral conflict, only 'merely apparent conflict - of ignorance or error, or of individual or social pathology' . Therefore his article 'Making Sense of moral conflict' gives an account of moral disagreement that shows that it is constructed by individuals through lack of experience and feelings with the issue at hand. Moreover, Lukes believes that utilitarian principles win out over any other when sorting out moral disagreements on a large or visible political scale. Furthermore, Lukes criticises relativist arguments by declaring that relativism fails to take claims seriously by denying their applicability beyond cultural...