Ethical relativism is the doctrine that ethical values and beliefs are relative to the various individuals or societies that hold them.
Origin of this doctrine:
Anthropological and sociological evidence.
Different cultures have different MORES--customs,
Often different MORALS.
Example: differences in sexual morality: we can see this within our own society.
Some societies believe that cannibalism is necessary for the continued health and survival of the tribe
Some Inuit groups believed it was morally right to abandon old people who could no longer travel with the group
Some even had ritual strangulation of the old by their children.
Question: is their such a thing as a universal ethical theory?
What is Ethical Relativism? (24)
People say: what is right for you is not necessarily right for me.
Or: something might be morally right or wrong at different times.
Some have argued that this kind of RELATIVISM means that we cannot make any objective or even GENERAL moral assessments.
Ethical relativism: morality is either entirely a personal matter,
or
a function of culture.
Here: ethical values and beliefs are a function of what individuals and societies believe.
According to ethical relativism, there is no objective right or wrong.
Other position: there are objective ethical standards:
Called: OBJECTIVISM or NONRELATIVISM
Useful way to understand this:
Compare MORALITY with SCIENCE
Science seems to have a UNIVERSAL VALIDITY
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: a way of PROVING scientific OBJECTIVITY
We make PROGRESS in SCIENCE: meaning we learn more and more about the scientific world.
Question: what would ethical progress be?
Morality doesn't seem to be as OBJECTIVE as SCIENCE
This is another factor leading to the claim that all morality has a subjective, rather than an objective basis.
(25) Two Forms of Ethical RelativismPersonal or Individual Ethical Relativism
and
Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism
Individual Ethical Relativism: my views are mine, yours are yours.
Question: how do we acquire ethical beliefs?
Do we all have our own ethical history?
Here: we refrain from saying any one view is correct or incorrect.
To do so would be to assume some objective standard or right and wrong against which we could judge the universal correctness of a moral point of view.
Ethical relativism denies this standard.
Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism:
Every society has its own moral beliefs.
We determine what is morally right by looking at the norms of our society.
Cultural Relativism holds that no cultures morality is superior to any others.
Ancient Egyptians: buried the king's servants along with the king.
From the perspective of our culture, we cannot say that this was wrong.
(25) REASONS SUPPORTING ETHICAL RELATIVISM
Question: why would anyone support ethical relativism?
THREE MAIN REASONS:
1. DIVERSITY OF MORAL VIEWS:
Historical, sociological, anthropological investigation shows that different groups have different moral views and practices.
People have been thinking, in earnest, about moral matters for centuries--why is there no agreement?
Question: give examples of moral disagreement?
2. MORAL UNCERTAINTY
We are not always sure what is the right thing to do.
Key Question: If there were objective standards would we be in a situation of moral uncertainty
Question: give examples of moral uncertainty?
3. SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Different people are in different situations.
Some are rich, some are poor.
Some are in drought some are in flood.
Overpopulation v. Underpopulation
[Anecdote: weatherman--warm weather is ending, getting colder.
Would 58 degrees be warm weather in July?]
It is difficult to believe that the same things that would be right for one would be right for another.
BIG QUESTION: What is the likelihood that any moral theory of judgment can apply in a general and universal way?
Conclusion here: Morality must be relative to a particular situation and circumstance.
Question: are these reasons convincing?
Question: What are the types of moral beliefs that would strictly depend on culture?
Question: Are there any which seem to go beyond cultural relativism?
(26) Are the Reasons Convincing?
26: THE DIVERSITY OF MORAL VIEWPOINTS
Two questions here:
1. how WIDESPREAD is the DISAGREEMENT?
2. what does the FACT of DISAGREEMENT prove?
CULTURAL RELATIVISM: how widespread is the disagreement among cultures?
Question: Are there any things widely agreed to be morally right or wrong?
Question of disagreement over facts v. disagreement on moral principles:
Textbook pg. 26: Bill and Jane disagree on pollution controls.
Do they disagree about moral principles, or do they just disagree about facts?
Problems with moral disagreement: from the fact that there is moral disagreement it does not follow that there is NO OBJECTIVE morality, but only that AGREEMENT REMAINS TO BE FOUND.
MORAL RELATIVISM CLAIMS THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH!
MORAL UNCERTAINTY:
Problem of MORAL RELATIVISM v. MORAL SKEPTICISM
RELATIVISM: no objective moral principles
SKEPTICISM: impossible to know objective moral principles
Question: see the difference?
The fact that we are uncertain about something does not prove that there is no answer.
It could be that there are OBJECTIVE MORAL PRINCIPLES, ones that everyone would agree on, but we may not have FOUND THEM YET
SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES (27)
Textbook: Situational differences might offer different conclusions even with the same objective values:
Chart pg. 27: Situational Differences may lead those who share an objective value to reach different moral conclusions:
Example: giving someone an insulin injection.
Situational differences (27)
Distinction: OBJECTIVISM and ABSOLUTISM
ABSOLUTISM: View that moral rules or principles have no exceptions and are context-independent (27)
Absolutism: would deny situational differences make ANY difference at all
Stealing is ALWAYS wrong
Variety of OBJECTIVISM: (MacKinnon's idea)
There is some OBJECTIVE GOOD but what is good in a concrete case may vary from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance (28).
For example: stealing might be justified in some circumstances if it is necessary for life
Life is an objective good, and a greater good than property.
Opposing absolutism does not commit one to opposing objectivism.
MacKinnon--neat way out of relativism:
Statement: what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another.
Term for = in the view of
Then here a simple statement that moral disagreement exists:
What is right in the view of one person is not what is right in the view of another person.
This is not yet relativism.
Her insulin example:
Insulin good be good for some people, but not others.
Health is an objective good, what diminishes it is bad.
For a diabetic, not having insulin would diminish health
For a nondiabetic, an insulin shot would diminish health
Question: see the disagreement: why is this not relativism?
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS (about relativism) (28)Some problems with Cultural Relativism
1. If morality is relative to culture: my morality depends on what cultural group I am a part of.
But: which group's morals should I follow?
My Country, My state, my family, my age group, my friends?
People belong to more than one "society"
Often there are conflicting moral views--how do we decide between them?
2. If a society changes its views does that mean that MORALITY changes?
Is something justified if 52% favor it.
What if support falls off to 48%, is it still justified?
Was slavery not wrong in 1856?
PROBLEM WITH INDIVIDUAL RELATIVISM:
How to decide moral questions: consult my feelings.
But feelings can be in conflict.
Difference between what I feel I want to do and what I OUGHT to do.
To say there is something I OUGHT to do seems to deny relativism.
Another Problem:
TOLERANCE: seems to be at the heart of relativism.
Worry about your own views, not someone else's.
Problem: if you're a cultural relativist: you could only accept tolerance if that was a dominant value of your culture.
Why should anyone accept TOLERANCE--if there are no objective moral standards??
MAIN CRITICISM AIMED AT RELATIVISM: seems to have a kind of intellectual laziness or lack of moral courage.
Relativism doesn't seem to give arguments but, "empty" statements like: what's good for some may not be good for others."
May just be the easy way out from have to think about difficult moral questions.
Question: Is this a valid criticism of relativism?-that it's just the easy way out?
MAIN CRITICISM OF OBJECTIVISM: how to provide an alternative to relativism.
The Objectivist needs to give us reasons to believe that there is an objective good.
Question: how could you prove there is an objective good? If you can't prove it, does that leave us in relativism?
MORAL REALISM (29)
Question of MORAL REALISM--gets us into metaphysical questions
Question: Is there a reality independent of the knower?
Scientific realism: there is a real world out there that exists in a definite determinate way: NATURE
Goal of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE: to know that reality.
REALISM: the position that reality exists out there, independent of us.
MORAL REALISM: an objective morality exists beyond the morality of cultures or individuals.
Question: how could moral GOODNESS have a REAL EXISTENCE?
MORAL SUPERVENIENCE: moral properties are based upon, or flow from other qualities such as courage or generosity of honesty.
MORAL PLURALISM (29)
Moral Pluralism tied to an ancient question in philosophy:
Is THE GOOD one or many?
Is there one primary moral principle by which we can judge all actions?
Or
Are the a variety of equally valid moral principles or equal moral values?
MORAL PLURALISM is the position that there are a variety of ways of deciding ethical questions: a variety of equally valid conceptions of the good.
Question: what's the difference between Pluralism and Relativism?
FROM MOST DEFINITE TO LEAST:
MORAL ABSOLUTISM
MORAL OBJECTIVISM
MORAL PLURALISM
MORAL RELATIVISM
Mary Midgley Trying out One's New Sword
Mary Midgley is a British philosopher.
Looking a the question of moral relativism and what she calls "moral isolationism."
She's looking at strange cultures, changes in lifestyles, etc.
Question can anyone give an example of something in another culture that seems strange to us?
Midgley mentions female Circumcision: can we condemn African cultures from practicing this?
We see different cultures and it leads us to think: "moral judgment is a kind of coinage valid only in its country of origin. 31, 1
Most call this Cultural Relativism.
She calls it "moral isolationism" 31, 1
Question: what does she mean by moral isolationism?
She says it ultimately doesn't make any sense.
People take it up to be respectful to other cultures, but she doesn't think moral isolationism is respectful
Midgley wants to take a "one world" view.
Her focus: She looks at a custom in Samurai warriors.
Japanese word: tsujigiri
Literally means "crossroads cut"
Means "to try out one's new sword on a chance wayfarer"
Question Do we have anything like that in our culture?
If the samurai sword didn't slice through its victim in a single stroke it would injure the warrior's honor, offend his ancestors and even let down the emperor.
How do we react to a custom like this?
Midgley says we might say, well we're not members of that culture so let's not pass judgment on it.
Since we're only members of our own culture, a generalized extension of this principle leaves us with MORAL ISOLATIONISM
Question Do you agree with Midgley's reasoning here?
Remember that Midgley is arguing against moral isolationism.
Question: Does this barrier work both ways.
Are people in other cultures unable to criticize our culture?
Could an Indian from the Brazilian rainforest deliver a "damning indictment" of our whole Western culture after being in a Brazilian town for two weeks?
Midgley thinks one could, but they'd have to live in our culture for a while.
Another Question: What about moral isolationism blocking praise as well as blame?
Could I praise another culture?
31-32: Midgley thinks, if we can praise them, we ought to be able to criticize them also.
What's involved in judging another culture?
Judging a matter of forming an opinion.
Crude simple-minded opinions are bad-Samurai culture is bad because it's non-Christian
But we need to have examples of things to aim at or avoid.
This applies to other cultures as well as our own.
Midgley says we're rightly angry with those who despise, oppress or steam roll other cultures.
Talks about someone defending the Samurai warrior.
He might talk about the differences between ours and Samurai culture.
But the standards he'd have to use to defend Samurai culture would have to be ones current in our own culture: Ideals like discipline and devotion.
Question: how many people enjoy martial arts movies?
Midgley says the isolating barriers won't work
33, 1 If we accept something as a serious moral truth about one culture, we can't refuse to apply it-in however different an outward form-to other cultures as well.
Midgley contends that we ask questions from where we stand {standpoint theory v. relativism}
We'd have to understand the Samurai's actions in our terms, not his.
It takes a lot of hard work to understand another culture.
Final point is about our culture: British Culture, (by implication, American Culture as well):
really not an isolating culture but a culture forged from many different sources.
Unlike the mono cultures anthropologists study, our culture, like British culture is formed from many streams.
We may make judgements about other cultures, and they make judgments about us.
As we get to know each other, our judgments are less hasty.
It's not impossible to know another culture
We might come to really understand the Samurai-it just might take a long time.
Concludes: 34, 1
Morally as well as physically, there is only one world, and we all have to live in it.
Question: what do you think this last remark means?
