Westermarck writes, “…a theory which leads to an examination of the psychological and historical origin of people’s moral opinions should be more useful than a theory which postulates moral truths enunciated by self-evident intuitions that are unchangeable”. Agree or disagree and give your reasons.\

To start with, I feel that the theory of teleological or consequentialist ethics is the most likely applicable theory in this situation. What I mean is, individuals that accept an untestable and unsupported theory would most likely do so because of a moral obligation of what is desired as a whole society. I completely agree with Westermarck’s statement. It is, in my eyes, a better decision to accept and trust a theory based on studies ad evidence opposed to proving a theory accurate based off of an opinion with no evidence.  A theory that has not been examined or proven by facts or evidence is incomplete and therefore an idea that cannot be tested but, examining psychological and historical origins assists with an understanding of the biological and individual’s emotional and more states which allow the individual creating the theory reach a valid, supported, conclusion. If one individual attempts to prove a theory by their personal opinion or idea then there is no possibility to prove the theory to be true or not. It very well may be wrong because the individual has no definitive facts. Each individual is unique and guided differently on their decision of right and wrong based on their morals. As such, moral opinions in conjunction with the psychological and historical origins would allow for us to gather supporting and logical facts as a whole opposed to only using the opinion of one individual. So, in conclusion, it is always a wiser decision to examine people’s moral opinions using psychological and historical origins rather than moral truths of self-evident intuitions that cannot be challenged and are unchangeable.