#2 Quiz - Moral Relativism Quiz

Some philosophers do not think that rational persons should stick with conventionalism (i.e. cultural ethical relativism). Instead, the cultural relativist should move to individual ethical relativism, or subjectivism. One might give three reasons why this is the case. In the following list, choose the one which is not one of the reasons you would gives for this move

Conventional (Cultural) ethical relativism entails disturbing judgments about the law. On this view, civil disobedience would be morally wrong, since you are acting against the norms decided by the culture. Also, if my subculture (say, the KKK) is substantial enough and if it does not like the laws in question (say, the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s) it has the moral mandate to disobey the laws. (Pojman, 33-34)

Which of the following views claims that there are NO objective moral principles, but that all valid moral principles are justified or made true by virtue of their cultural acceptance which recognizes the social nature of morality?

Conventional Ethical Relativism (i.e. Cultural Ethical Relativism)

Ethical relativism as a doctrine states that there are universal moral standards that apply to all humans at all times.

False

Finding one action that is right/wrong across all locations and all time periods humans exist would not show that ethical relativism (both forms--conventional/cultural and individual/subjective) is false

False

The anthropological fact of cultural relativism (i.e. different cultures have different moral beliefs) is by itself able to establish the truth of conventionalism (cultural ethical relativism)?

False

The belief that what is right in some circumstances is not necessarily right in others cannot be held by moral realists (or ethical objectivists).

False

The ethical relativist could still find a way to declare the Nazi-ethic of the systematic destruction of the subhumans (Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies) problematic.

False

One puzzling thing is that it is difficult to be a moral relativist and be consistent. Most of cable news shows during the Trump Administration have moral debates about the ethics of building a wall on the southern border and the ethics of a travel ban and President Trump's tweets. The problem is that many of these same people are operating from a Naturalistic or Postmodern worldview and so it is difficult for them to be anything other than moral nihilists or moral relativists. If moral nihilism is true, than the claims of "right" and "wrong" are meaningless, and if moral relativism (conventionalism) is true, there should be no more debates about what is right and wrong by these politicians, professors, and political commentators. Why?

If conventionalism is true, then the only thing discussed on cable news should be polls of the American culture. 51% of Americans decide right and wrong. There should be no emotions around right and wrong. Polls decide what is right and wrong.

Objectivists (moral realists) do not usually appeal to the following act as an example of something that is always wrong regardless of culture, time period, or circumstances.

Killing someone

The view that there are one or more universal moral principles or values that are valid for all people in all places (or at least have shown up in one place in history), is known as which of the following?

Moral Objectivism or Moral Realism

The view that holds that there are no universally valid moral principles, but rather all moral principles are based on what humans believe (i.e. valid relative to culture or individual choice_ is which of the following?

Moral Relativism

On the worldview of Naturalism (scientific atheism), there is no God and no design for the universe. The universe just appeared. Human organisms are just the product of nature (chemistry and physics) working out in the history of the universe. Moral intuitions are also the product of chemistry and physics and have no relationship to reality. Since everything is natural, nothing is wrong in the universe. Good and evil and right and wrong do not exist even if humans think they do (thanks to evolutionary programming). Moral nihilism is true, but it is so awful and it doesn't fit with our evolved moral intuitions (that are false), so the best option is to become ______________________________ to avoid being moral nihilists and seeing the destruction of society.

Moral Relativists (ground morality in human beliefs)

On this worldview, the following views are usually held: 1) An Epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) of strong scientism or weak scientism (the view that the hard sciences yield all knowledge or the best knowledge). 2) The Grand Story: Naturalistic Big Bang Theory and Naturalistic Evolution explain everything about human beings 3) A Metaphysics: Physicalism or the view that only matter and energy exist in universe (no gods or souls/minds or ghosts exist)

Naturalism (scientific atheism)

This worldview holds that there is a loving personal God who created the world and cares about humans. On most of these worldviews, God designed human beings to be different than nature with minds/souls and the non-natural powers of free will, creativity, and the ability to discover good and evil. Group of answer choices Naturalism (scientifi

Personal Theism

This worldview (inspired by Nietzsche) holds that there are no universal truths (or "meta-narratives"). In science, history, religion, and ethics there are only individual views and individual stories (narratives) that we try to impose on others. Group of answer choices

Postmodernism (Post-Structuralism)

On the basis of what form of ethical relativism could Ted Bundy and Adolf Hilter be considered "moral"?

Subjectivism (Individual Ethical Relativism)

This objection against cultural (ethical) relativism states that it is notoriously difficult to define the boundaries of a culture or society. Should it include the West (Western Europe and North America), or should it include each state in the U.S.A.? What about little isolated cultures within the boundaries of the state (e.g. Amish)? Maybe we should define cultures by city limits (e.g. Cincinnati). But, some neighborhoods might be weird and want their own moral autonomy. So, let's draw the boundaries around neighborhoods. But what if a guy has a big house and land in the neighborhood and wants to make his culture where his property ends? You get the point. What is this objection called?

The objection from sub-groups

The anthropologist Melville Herskovitz used the following argument to claim that ethical relativism entails intercultural tolerance: P1. If morality is relative to its culture, then there is no independent basis for criticizing the morality of any culture but one's own. P2. If there is no independent way of criticizing any other culture, then we ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures. P3. Morality is relative to its culture. ** Moral Realists/Objectivists see problems with this argument. What is one critique of this argument? C. Therefore, we ought to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures.

Tolerance is certainly a virtue, but this is a bad argument for it. If morality is simply relative to each culture, then if the culture in question has no principle of tolerance (like Nazi Germany, contemporary Venezuela, or any Communist country of the 20th century), its members have no obligation to be tolerant. Herskovits treats the principle of tolerance as an absolute moral principle. This is inconsistent with his relativism.

A lot of college students adopt moral relativism because they find this view to be more "tolerant" than objectivist theories. One problem with this reasoning is that tolerance might not be a virtue shared by any moral culture in the world--intolerance might be the primary virtue of every society. In that case, it is unreasonable to use tolerance as a criterion for accepting relativism. A second problem is that to appeal to tolerance as a universal moral principle ("Everyone should be tolerant") is to find one universal moral principle that is true of reality. In that case, relativism is false. To show relativism to be false, you simply need to affirm one universal moral principle.

True

According to individual ethical relativism (subjectivism), I cannot be objectively mistaken in my moral judgments.

True

Ethical nihilism (or Moral Nihilism) is the view that morality is a fiction and that there are no existing valid moral principles. It also holds that moral properties such as good and evil or right and wrong have never appeared at any time in the history of the universe.

True

Imagine that Al Qaeda takes over the world and everone in the world submits to their brand of radical Islam. As a result, the planet praises those who carried out the 9/11 attacks as just and honorable. If you are a moral objectivist who thinks that those acts of terrorism against innocent civilians were wrong, you may argue against everyone on the planet. If you are a cultural relativist (conventionalist), then you are forced to agree with the masses that 9/11 was a great good.

True

On the basis of subjectivism, Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy, Osama bin Laden, and Jeffrey Dahmer could be considered as moral as Mother Theresa of Calcutta because each of those four lived by their own standards.

True

One of the consequences of both forms of moral relativism (conventionalism and subjectivism) is that moral reformers like Jesus, William Wilberforce, Benjamin Rush, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., are always, from the standpoint of this viewpoint, morally wrong.

True

One problem that the relativist has is accounting for moral beliefs. When Suzy says, "I think capital punishment is wrong," on cultural ethical relativism she is saying that abortion is wrong just for her culture. But, this doesn't seem right - it seems that her view is broader than her culture. Same problem for a subjective moral relativist like Bart. When he says, "kicking puppies is wrong!" he is, on his view, simply talking about himself. But, it seems that he really does intend to say that this is a wrong thing for all people to do--not just him.

True

One problem with relativism is that every event in history has to be described by either cultures or individuals to know if they were good or evil. So, 9/11 will be moral, if Conventionalism is true, if 51% of your culture thinks it was a moral action. If subjectivism is true, the Nazi Holocaust was a moral event if you think it was a good thing.

True

The "Problem of Moral Inquiry" against relativism is that relativism seems to go against the common practice of wondering what the right and wrong thing to do is. On conventionalism (or cultural ethical relativism), people need to take a poll of the culture/society to determine right/wrong actions. On subjectivism, an individual has to ask himself what he thinks is right/wrong to do. Since we think that there are better ways to find out what is right/wrong, the problem of moral inquiry is an objection to both forms of relativism.

True

The reason why a relativist cannot believe in moral progress is because progress assumes a goal or some objective.

True

One objection against CONVENTIONALISM (Cultural Ethical Relativism) is "The Problem of Sub-Groups." At the heart of this objection, there is a notorious problem in clearly defining the following terms?

culture and society

The doctrine that states that no valid moral principles exist and that morality is completely fictitious is known as:

ethical nihilism