ethics exam 1: moral relativism, moral universalis, CMR, IMR, PE, EE

4 undesirable consequences of moral relativism

1. dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way 2. we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own 3. there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures 4. "...social reformers of every sort would always be wrong" (pg. 28, right side)

argument from psychological egoism for ethical egoism

1. morality can only require us to do what we are capable of doing (truism) 2. the only real motivation we are capable of having is to make ourselves better off (definition of psychological egoism) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. so, morality can only require us to make ourselves better off this is ethical egoism

arguemnt from tolerance

1. the only way for societies to be tolerant of each other is for them to hold that the moral standards, values, and practices of other cultures are all equally good 2. Only cultural moral relativism takes the moral standards, values and practices of all cultures to be equally good ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. so, only cultural moral relativism ensures tolerance between all cultures

argument from moral disagreements

1. there are a great many very deep moral disagreements between cultures 2. the prospect of settling them seems very dim 3. so there seems to be no universal right answer in these cases (that covers all cultures) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. therefore what is morally right or morally wrong can only be settled within a given culture

consequence #4: IMR reduces our moral responses that conflict with another persons moral behavior or values to either

1939 Germany with Hitler have a moral response to his actions of killing people in horrific ways and forcing them into horrific situations our rage and anger comes from these actions a.) mere expression of an attitude or feeling (boos, hiss on what you did OR b.) pointing out that the standards the person holds or what she has done is inconsistent with our own personal statements ex.) Dexter believes in killing people who kill people (or are bad people, pedophiles) like serial killers so he is morally correct/right to kill them as long as he doesnt say that he is killing them because the serial killers are morally wrong hes a serial serial killer

what is wrong with ethical egoism

5 things 1. it doesnt offer a good explanation of why bad actions are bad 2. it reduces rules like "dont murder" "keep your promises" to rules of thumb 3. it can require some actions that seem very immoral 4. it can forbid us from doing things that seem clearly morally good 5. it permits us to escape what appears to be very important moral duties 2-5 go against deeply help common moral intuitions when that happens a moral theory can still be successful provided it explains why those intuitions are wrong and theres a solid positive argument showing why theory is true intuitions arent wrong ee is wrong

The most basic standards of right and wrong depend entirely on what standards are generally accepted in the society in which you live. Yes. The view Nagel is referring to is called cultural moral relativism, which is the view that what is morally right and wrong is so only within a culture and is determined entirely by the standards and values of that culture. Since this would be true for each culture, what is morally right or wrong can differ from culture to culture.

According to Nagel, which describes the view that morality is relative at a deep, basic level?

Social reformers of every sort, like Martin Luther King Jr., would always be morally wrong. Other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized or condemned for committing monstrous deeds like genocide, if those deeds accord with that culture's moral values. Since for cultural relativism there is no objective standard by which to compare the practices of the past with those of the present, cultural relativism cannot hold that there is such a thing as moral progress in a culture even when the culture does away with a practice like slavery. Every culture is morally infallible: if a culture genuinely holds that a certain practice is morally right, then it is and there's no way for them to be mistaken about this. all of the above

According to Vaughn, which of the following is an implication of, or a consequence of, cultural moral relativism? That is, if cultural moral relativism were true, which of these would follow?

To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because the view says that there are no objective moral values. If a culture approves of intolerance, then intolerance is right for that culture, according to cultural relativism. Cultural relativism therefore cannot consistently claim that tolerance is morally right everywhere.

According to Vaughn, which of the following is true about the relationship between the value of tolerance toward cultures and cultural moral relativism

Yes, it is morally permissible to help others but only if doing so is in our own best interest in some way.

According to ethical egoism, is it ever morally permissible to help other people?

What explains why, in general, we should avoid harming other people, tell the truth, and keep our promises is that it is in our own best interest if we do so.

According to the third argument for ethical egoism that Rachels considers, ethical egoism's principle of self-interest is the one fundamental principle from which all other rules, like don't harm others, speak the truth, and keep your promises, are derived. Which of the following helps explain what it means for other rules to be "derived from the principle of self-interest"?

objection to claim 2 in unifying thesis: EE explains why we should follow these rules: following them serves the agents best interest

EE doesnt offer a good explanation of why horrible actions are bad: why murder is wrong, why torturing is wrong the reason not to torture, rape, or murder someone, is not because you are likely to face negative consequences (eg. jail, death penalty) EE locates the badness of these actions in what could happen to the perpetrator rather than what it does to the victim explanation of why murder is wrong centers on the murderer and not the victim (we think murder is wrong because of the victim) direct objection to ethical egoism

People who don't believe in God still think it's wrong to kill someone just for his wallet and therefore wouldn't do it. If God exists, and forbids what's wrong, that still isn't what makes it wrong. Murder is wrong in itself, and that's why God forbids it. Fear of punishment and hope of reward, and even love of God, seem not to be the right motives for morality. *God in fact does not exist.

Nagel considers the claim that the motive for not killing someone just to steal his wallet is the desire to obey God and avoid God's punishment after one dies. Which of the following is NOT an objection Nagel raises against this claim?

examples of cultural moral relativism

Sati/Suttee: a womans husband died and when they went to cremate him, she asked to be burned to death with him and she was. found to be a saint british were horrified by this - should britian impose their views on india? now illegal but still considered are outsiders justified in standards of other cultures? ex.) abortion - pro choice vs pro life

He would think it is an incorrect view about human motivation. To experience satisfaction with himself, the rescuer would have to desire something other than his own satisfaction, like the desire to rescue the child. This is because feeling satisfied with oneself is a byproduct of achieving your goals and doing the things you care about.

Suppose a psychological egoist says that even what appear to be selfless acts are all in fact motivated by self-interest; for instance, a man rushing into a burning building to save a complete stranger's child is really doing it to feel satisfaction with himself. How would Vaughn respond to this claim?

true

T/F: According to ethical egoism, our only moral duty is to do what is in our own best interest.

true

T/F: Consider the following example. Suppose a young man visits his elderly, bedridden father. When he sees that no one else is around, he uses a pillow to smother the old man in order to collect on his life insurance. Suppose also that the action is in the son's best interests; it will cause not the least bit of unpleasant feelings in him; and the crime will remain his own terrible secret. According to ethical egoism, this heinous act is morally right.

false

T/F: Ethical egoism just is psychological egoism, that is, they are different names for the same view.

true

T/F: Nagel thinks that the ideas of wrong and right are different from what is and is not against rules made by people, like a library's rules or the government's laws.

true

T/F: Psychological egoism is the view that the motive for all our actions is self-interest.

true

T/F: Sometimes people say, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" to try to convince someone not to mistreat others. Is the following a good representation of the real argument Nagel thinks this question is trying to get at? When someone mistreats you, this hurts you (in some way) and you believe that because you are harmed this should be reason enough for her not to do it in the first place. But there's nothing special about you or your pain, so this should also count as a reason for her not to do it to anyone. But then there's nothing special about her either. She is just like you, so the reason she has not to hurt people in this way also counts as a reason for you not to hurt people in this way, so you shouldn't do it either.

true

T/F: Vaughn thinks that the premise, people's judgments about right and wrong vary from culture to culture, is most certainly true.

This is not really an argument for ethical egoism. The principle that this argument supports is beneficence, that is, to do what will benefit everyone, not merely what will benefit ourselves.

What is the main objection that Rachels raises to the following argument (which is the first argument he considers)? Society will be much better off if each person simply looked out for him/herself. This is because each person knows their own goals and needs best and the interference and charity of others would often do more harm than help. Further, charity makes the receiver feel belittled and degraded and would teach them to be passive and dependent on others instead of becoming self-reliant. This shows that a policy of helping others is self-defeating because everyone will end up being worse off. So it's in everyone's best interest if we simply look out for ourselves.

Suppose Culture A endorses infanticide, but Culture B does not. Such a disagreement does not demonstrate that both cultures are equally correct or that there is no objectively correct answer. After all, it is possible that infanticide is objectively right (or wrong) and that the relevant moral beliefs of Culture A or Culture B are false. People can differ in their moral judgments not just because they accept different moral principles, but also because they have divergent nonmoral beliefs. They may actually embrace the same moral principles, but their moral judgments conflict because their nonmoral beliefs lead them to apply those principles in different ways. So the diversity of moral judgments across cultures does not necessarily indicate deep disagreements over fundamental moral principles or standards. Some philosophers argue that a core set of moral values -including, for example, truth telling and prohibitions against murder -must be universal, otherwise cultures would not survive.

What reason(s) does Vaughn give for thinking that the following premise is false or doubtful? If people's judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective [and universal] moral principles.

points of disagreement from abortion example

abortion murder is wrong health of woman harm of innocent life nonmoral facts whats a person? does fetus feel pain?

what is the objection to the following: the reason why one should follow rules like dont commit murder is that following them serves ones own best interest?

according to EE - sometimes it is in your best interest to murder someone/treat someone badly to follow the principle of self interest you have to kill

unifying thesis

according to common sense moral intuitions these are moral rules people should follow 2 claims from unifying thesis: q. all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, ethical egoisms principle of self interest, and so explains what they all have in common based on 3rd argument, Rachels pg. 71-72 2. EE explains why we should follow these rules: following them serves the agents best interest following common sense morality rules is in our best interest - breaking them is to our detriment

objection to claim 1 in unifying thesis: all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, ethical egoisms principle of self interest, and so explains what they all have in common

all these rules are ultimately derived from one fundamental principle, EEs principle of self interest sometimes its in your best interest to treat another person badly ex: murder (killing an innocent person) in this case, to follow the principle of self interest you need to murder that person but this rule still applies dont murder someone so this is wrong: this shows the rule against muder cant come from EEs principle of self interest similar remarks apply to other rules

examples of pe

always find a way to benefit from something giving a pencil, giving to the homeless - makes you feel better, makes you look better to the people around her doing good deeds creates a reputation of doing nice things - true aim of actions is feeling good/being a good person true motivation for any action at bottom is self serving mom saves kid from being hit by a bus and she dies benefits cause she gets hero status and looks like a great mom

CMR: dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way EE: dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards CMR: we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own EE: we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought) CMR: there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures EE: for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress

are any of the ethical egoism undesirable consequences analogous to the undesirable consequences cultural moral relativism has? which ones?

cogency

argument is cogent if and only if the premises really do provide good reasons to accept the conclusion 2 things required for cogency: the premises MUST be true - all of them premises MUST support the conclusion (pertains to reasoning of argument) different degress to which premises support their conclusion

point 1 of whats wrong with EE: it doesnt offer a good explanation of why bad actions are bad

bad actions are bad because of what happens to the perpetrator and not the victim

argument

chain of thought in which reasons (premises) are offered in support of a particular (claim) conclusion

claim vs counterclaim for pe

claim: the real reason (goal) why we do anything is to benefit ourselves (ie selfishly) ie. feeling good counter claim: the real goal: helping other person by product is feeling good feel good because the other person benefits - other person has to benefit for you to feel good

points of disagreement from Suttee example

compelling someone to commit suicide (morally wrong) obligated to care for wellbeing of offspring/children non moral facts heaven? and if so how to enter? what is a person? is there life after death?

moral relativism #2: we lose our ability to condemn any societys standards and practices - both another cultures and our own

condemn believe in for important reasons Vaughn: "if a culture approves of the actions that it performs then those actions are morally right regardless of what other cultures have to say about the matter" (p. 29, left side) moral infallibility - each society makes up their own rules and they cant be wrong about them because what they say goes the only legitimate criticism we can make is the change of inconsistency ex.) enslaving curly haired people but allowing them to own property and have "freedom" going against their professed teaching and inconsistency but this is not to condemn a cultures values or practices as being wrong

condemn

declare something to be reprehensible, (objectively) wrong, or evil based on evidence and without reservation

altruism

desire to benefit others for their own sake without any alterior motive doesnt involve self sacrifice - not wanting to gain anything from it

4 undesirable consequences of IMR

dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought) for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress IMR reduces our moral responses that conflict with another persons moral behavior or values to either

how do we know that a rule like dont commit murdre cannot be dreived from ethical egoism's principle of self interest

dont commit murder - EE doesnt offer an explanation of why murder is wrong the reason not to kill isnt that you are facing consequences but what happens to the perpretrator explanation centers on the murderer not the victim in a direct objection to EE

argrument from moral disagreement: therefore what is morally right or morally wrong can only be settled within a given culture

each culture is correct

where things stan with EE

ee: the only moral principle is self interest - each person should do what is in their own best interest exclusively plausibly a duty to do what is in your own best interest is one among other moral principles

.

ethical egoism is a type of moral universalism

how do we object to the argument from tolerance

every society should be tolernat even of those intolerant ones so some societies should support in tolerance being tolerant of other cultures is a universal moral principle (every culture SHOULD BE morally tolerant) CMR says that there are no universal moral principles so they CANT say this

reason for thinking pe is true

everything we do seems to be aimed at some benefit to ourselves even those actions that appear to be altruistic and self sacrificing in those cases we get satisfaction from helping we feel good about ourselves we gain happiness or pleasure so in the end we are only capable of doing things in order to benefit ourselves

moral relativism #4: "...social reformers of every sort would always be wrong" (pg. 28, right side)

ex.) antigenocide reformers, abolitionists, suffragettes if our society decided to adopt the standard and practice of ex.) murdering certain people in our society, to resist this would be immoral but our natural reaction is that it would be immoral not to resist

moral relativism #3: there seems to be genuine moral process in cultures

ex.) giving women same rights as men is changing their minds Vaughn: "for moral relativists there is no objective standard by which to compare the ways of the past with the ways of the present" (p. 29, right side) cultural relativism can only say that these are cases of a society changing its mind as opposed to becoming enlightened there is no truth, no progress or moving to a truth because there was no truth

point 4 of whats wrong with EE: it can forbid us from doing things that seem clearly morally good

ex: actions involving self sacrifice, being kind to others, keeping promises, when none of these benefits us you dont have to help someone if you dont want to or dont get what you want from it (violating parole & helping someone would put you in the paper and therefore in jail) helping someone could be to your detriment bc you were out of state and violating parole shouldnt do it

point 5 of whats wrong with EE: it permits us to escape what appears to be very important moral duties

ex: duty of an easy rescue, saving someone at little or no cost to us ex: at a restuarant and someone chokes, you could stop eating and help them but that means you are disrupting your meal EE allows you to not help and continue eating your meal dont have to do it

moral relativism # 1: dissolves most moral disputes between cultures with different moral standards in an unsatisfactory way

for CMR there is nothing that is wrong or right simpliciter ex.) murder is wrong = murder is wrong for society y (murder is wrong for contemporary American society) ex.) charity is good = charity is good for society x (list all of the societies) when articulating moral principles has to be aimed at a particular culture -- always relativised _____________ is wrong for _____________ society the only possible disagreement is: whether a society is actually living up to its own professed standards cannibalism is wrong for us, but right for you cant have a dispute between cultures

consequence #1: dissolves most moral disputes between individuals with different moral standards

for IMR, there is nothing that is wrong or right simpliciter: murder is wrong = murder is wrong for sabrina charity is good = charity is good for luke _____ is good/wrong = ______ is good/wrong for ______ these are perfectly compatible: capital punishment is morally permissible for george capital punishment is morally impermissible for hugo

example of moral reasoning argument

heroin is a drug selling heroin is illegal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. therefore heroin use is immoral if premises dont support the conclusion..its not cogent

no because each culture decides what is morally right or morally wrong for that culture

ic cultural moral relativism is true is it possible for some cultures to be mistaken about what is morally right and what is morally wrong

pe for ee #1: morality can only require us to do what we are capable of doing (truism)

ie. we can never be morally obligated to do something that we cannot possibly do morality: how humans treat each other (and animals) and how they should behave have to be able to do as it dictates -- be moral not harming someone because as a human you should have respect for them motivation for not harming others is your respect for humans

psychological egoism

iew that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation so the description can be true or false (claim is it is true) claim: the real reason why we do anything is to benefit ourselves

no ee says any action should be in our best interest -- not that they automatically are which is what PE kinda says PE: view that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation

if ethical egoism is true would that mean psychological egoism must be true too?

no becuase morally right or wrong is an individual choice for every person

if moral universalism is true is it possible for some cultures to be mistaken about what is morally right and what is morally wrong?

yes - if all actions are selfishly based and we benefit from them then ee (acting in best interest) would be correct - benefiting is in our best interest

if psychological egoism is true would that mean that ethical egoism must be true too?

infallibility

incapable of being mistaken/being wrong

consequence #3: for IMR theres no such thing as genuine moral progress

it can only say that these are cases of an individual changing her mind as opposed to becoming enlightened but there are counterexamples all over the place people change through reflection and weighing the evidence a bigot facing hard truths about themselves and changing through moral reflection and evidence to become against bigotry

three notes about ethical egoism

it is a type of moral universalism it is just that following this standard will be different for different people based on personal likes and dislikes and personal goals - in their best interest young beyonce would be following her moral duty to become a singer cause she has talent and enjoys all thats involved helping others is only morally required if it serves our best interests it is not a hedonist view: it doesnt say we should pursue what is pleasurable or what makes us happy. it tells us we are to pursue what is actually good for us

exapmples of common sense moral rules people should follow

it is wrong to murder someon e keep your promises be kind to others dont waste your talents/develop them

pe for ee #2:

made yourself feel better for doing something you are making yourself better off

argrument from moral disagreement: so there seems to be no universal right answer in these cases (that covers all cultures)

moral disputes suffer when compared with scientific disputes

point 3 of whats wrong with EE: it can require some actions that seem very immoral

murderer easily frames another person for their murder requires you to frame because it would be to your benefit

objection to the argument from moral disagreements

not accurate; leaves large amount of agreement unexplained objection to #3: actually opposite of 3 may be true (moral agreement) objection to #4: now claim is unsupported - serious holes in argument

the study of ethics; the what -- moral claims examples

not proper teachings but some basic examples of things exs.) wrong to deliberately physically harm someone without justification (morally wrong) morally obligated to provide for our children wrong to coerce somebody suicide is morally impermissible lying is morally wrong stealing is morally wrong good to give to charity but not morally required

the study of ethics - the how: moral reasoning

often takes form of evaluation of arguments argument why? because we want to know whats true and to be sure they are true - have solid grounds for the truth arguments provide those grounds ex.) argument is transformable

# 3 from tolerance: so, only cultural moral relativism ensures tolerance between all cultures

only CMR gives you A

# 2 from tolerance: Only cultural moral relativism takes the moral standards, values and practices of all cultures to be equally good

only CMR gives you B

principle of self interest

only moral duty you have is to do whats in your best interest (welfare)

# 1 from tolerance: he only way for societies to be tolerant of each other is for them to hold that the moral standards, values, and practices of other cultures are all equally good

only way to get to A is through B objection: if premise 1 were true then the society that valued intolerance would be as good as the ones that value tolerance in fact, adopting CMR is not a way to ensure societies are tolerant of one another

psychological egoism and ethical egoism are independment

psychological egoism is false you can hold that we are capable of altruism (= a rejection of psych egoism) but deny that we should be altruistic, ie. instead hold that we are morally obligated to look out for number one (Ethical Egoism)

hedonism

pursuit of pleasure

point 2 of whats wrong with EE: it reduces rules like "dont murder" "keep your promises" to rules of thumb

rules of thumb: rules you follow in general but not always dont have to follow rules if not in your best interest

Individual Moral Relativism 2

since there are no universal objective moral rules, no persons idea of right or wrong is more right than anothers individual moral relativism implies moral infallibility of individuals: no persons moral beliefs and values are wrong anything and everything is morally justified if it is someones beleif no matter how bad or illegal or a crime against humanity

allure of cultural moral relativism

some are tempted to be cultural moral relativists because they think its the only view that promotes tolerance of all cultures the thought is: if CMR were true, all cultures would be morally equal so it would force all cultures to be tolerant of one another if CMR were true, it would force all cultures to be tolerant of one another this rests on confusion CMR says there are no universally applicable moral standards if society Y supports intolerance, the CMR proponent cannot say that society Y is mistaken CMR cant consistently advocate tolerance - it depends on the culture

2 notes about moral universalism

that there are moral standards that are universally applicable (apply to every single human being) ex.) wrong to murder - good candidate for moral universal principle (applies to everyone) there are moral standards that are objectively true (true, independent of what humans believe) subjectively true - true for individual people

individual moral relativism 1

the belief that ethical standards change according to individual preference takes what is said about a whole culture and shrinks it down to the individual person each person determines for him/herself what is right or wrong so you determine what is right or wrong for you an action is right simply because you approve of it an action is wrong simply because you disapprove of it same goes for each person there is no such thing as a moral principle or action that is universally objectively true rejects moral relativism

when an ethical theory conflicts with a deeply held moral intuition that most of us have what must that moral theory do in order to still be successful

the moral theory can still be successful given that it explains why those intuitions are wrong and that theres a solid positive argument showing why the theory is true

cultural relativism

the practice of judging a culture by its own standards the view that what is morally wrong or morally right is so only within a given culture rejection of moral universalism an action can be judged as morally permissible or prohibited only against the moral standards of the culture to which the person belongs persons actions can only be morally judged relative to the culture they came from cant judge from other cultural standards the practices of the society can be judged only from a point of view that is internal to it morality comes from specific cultures whats right in one culture may be wrong in another culture what makes something morally right or wrong? culture no such thing as a moral principle or action that is universally objectively true why hold this view?

review of cultural moral relativism

the truth about morality cultures determine what is right or wrong nothing else does action is right simply because ones culture approves of it action is wrong simply because ones culture disapproves of it no such thing as moral principle or action that is universally objectively true rejects moral universalism there is no abosolute right or wrong there is just what is for a particluar individual society since there are no universal objective moral rules all cultures are morally equal: no cultures moral principles are more right than any others

moral universalism

the view that there are at least some moral standards that are universally applicable be tolerant of other cultures to avoid intolerance: a practice may be wrong but its not our place to interfere (we may do greater harm by interfering) universalism does say: we know what the universal principles are we are justified in coercing others to act in accordance with them

ethical egoism

the view that there is only one moral principle: each person should pursue what is in their own best interest (welfare) exclusively the only moral duty you have is to do what is actually in their best interest an action is morally right only if it actually serves the best interests of the person performing it performs a good action (college in the long run) it is to their benefit performs a bad action that goes against their welfare (taking drugs if you are perfectly healthy) it is to their detriment

# 2 from argrument from moral disagreement: the prospect of settling them seems very dim

these disputes seem no longer close to being settled seen as not making progress

argument from tolerance handout

this argument is amined at convinving those who already think tolerance is a good thing to become cultural moral relativists. if you dont value tolerance this arugment wont move you every society should be tolernat even of those intolerant ones so some societies should support in tolerance if either 1 or 2 is ture, then 3 would be false "be tolerant of other cultures" its a universal moral principle every culture should (morally should) be tolerant of other cultures CMR says there are no universal moral principles they CANT say this

consequence #2: we lose our ability to condemn any individuals standards and practices (legitimately condemn - based on evidence and rational thought)

to condemn - declare to be reprehensible (objectively) wrong or evil based on evidence and without reservation Pol Pot - Khmer Rouge, Cambodia 1975-1979 communism 1.5 mill out of 7-8 million people died under his rule believed in a classless society actions are judged only against their own standards so they cant be wrong on IMR Pol Pot, Hitler, mass shooters CANT be Wrong becuase their beliefs are morally correct under IMR the only legitimate criticism we can make of another persons moral behavior is the charge of inconsistency with their professed values -- if it applies

whats wrong with pe

ts wrong is psychological egosim PE asserts that the motive for all our actions is self interest ie. the motive is always selfish PE says in doing for others our real goal is to feel good but in many cases, its the other way around: our goal is to do for others, and our feeling good is secondary - a by product

moral relativism

undesirable consequences of cultural moral relativism be committed to consequences that are so undesirable and end up with nonmorality morality - show CMR is wrong cultural moral relativism implies infallibility of cultures: no cultures practices and values are wrong infallibillity ex.) those that believe in cannibalism are correct; those that dont believe in cannibalism are correct

ee: view that there is only one moral principle: each person should pursue what is in their own best interest (welfare) exclusively known as principle of self interest PE: view that the motive for all of our actions is self interest according to the view it simply describes the true nature of all human motivation PE is our actions are always selfsihly based on matter what and EE is each person should act based in their best interest

what are some key differences between ethical egoism and psychological egoism

study of ethics

what belongs on the list and why? (list of fundamental rules that are wrong) murder abuse - physical, mental, emotional torture what makes something right/wrong or permissible/impermissible are we allowed to break such rules? are there more basic fundamental principles that explain the rules what is their status? what is their source? (divine belief, culture, personal beliefs, etc)

attacks # 1, turns on non moral facts cant explain moral agreements between cultures suggests cultural moral relativism is false

what broader implication does this objection to moral diagreements have?

moral universalism

what is right or wrong is so for everyone, independently of who they are, what they believe, or what society comes from if there are moral rules they are absolute and objectively true (independent of what humans believe, think, cultures, etc) facts 2 important things about stance: universally applicable and objectively true

review of moral universalism

what is right or wrong is so for everyone, independently of who they are, what they believe, or what society they come from cultural moral relativism goes against this belief moral standards universally applicable moral standards are objectively true

objection to argument from moral disagreements

when we really examine the dispute, we often find very important aspects of moral agreement in many cases the dispute turns out to be over non moral facts claims about factual information agree over moral facts; disagree over nonmoral facts

CMR seems to promote the tolerance of all cultures

why might someone who thinks all cultures should be tolerant of the moral values and principles of every culture be tempted to adopt cultural moral relativism