Determinacy

This section is about Determinacy. A moral theory should feature principles that yield a determinant moral verdict about the morality of persons, actions, and other moral evaluations in a wide range of cases (Igneski, 2001, 607). Sometimes ideas are vague or ambiguous in moral theories. moral theory doesn’t fit anywhere; hence no moral verdict. It is not good for a moral theory to lack a moral verdict. A moral theory needs to allow for verdicts to be made, but sometimes relevant facts fail to work. Determinacy is when judging things by typically picking factors that meet specific criteria. Often determinacy verdicts are given based on whether the action was obligatory, wrong, or optional (Igneski, 2001, 609). When the action fails to meet the three categories, the aspect of “Niceness” is often considered with the goal of associating it with any of the verdicts to understand action. Sometimes, there is a chance that one cannot determine what sort of idea is needed to label something as wrong, obligatory or optional. Often in such cases, the idea of “Niceness” cannot be defined as either attractive, polite, or kind. Therefore, a determinate verdict is not yielded, thus undeterminable following vagueness hence not matching factual information. [you have the good stuff here. Just reorganize it a bit. I like the emphasize on nice as the ambiguous thing. Like, if you were supposed to nice to people and you lied to the creep. What does nice mean?]