PHIL Week 2

Ruth Benedict

(1887 - 1948) An American anthropologist and one of the first women to become prominent in the social sciences. - In her famous text, Patterns of Culture (1945), she advocated for CR and attempted to apply psychological concepts to whole groups. - Reacting to what they perceived to be the cultural imperialism of the West, the assumptions by some that the moral values of western Europe and America were ethically superior to the moral values of more 'primitive' cultures. - Views the values of any culture are neither superior nor inferior to those to another, they are on the same moral plane

Elizabeth Anscombe

(1919 - 2001), philosopher that protested against Truman's use of atomic bombs in WWII, thought he was a murderer because this bomb killed innocents - Champion of virtue ethics - Argued that Britain should not go to war because countries at war invariably end up fighting by unjust means - Her ethical views reflected traditional Catholic teachings

Opposition for Moral Realism

- "Cultures can disagree, we don't know if we'll ever come into an agreement for moral values" - Morality or moral judgements have various kinds of features and because of these features they can never be true (i.e.: diversity, if people did see these features as true there'd be less diversity/disagreement) - Moral judgements have a motivational impact to them (wouldn't say something's wrong unless you wouldn't do it yourself, any other judgement with that pull can't be a belief, it's an expression that's neither true nor false)

Problems of Emotivism

- Because there's no truth or falsity to moral statements, we have no initiative to ever act in a moral way because there's no morally right or wrong behavior - BIGGEST PROBLEM: Verification Principle itself - The principle states a statement can only be truth apt or have meaning if it's an analytic or synthetic statement - The statement "a statement can only be truth apt or have meaning if it's an analytic or synthetic statement" isn't an analytic or synthetic statement, which means the statement's meaningless and the Verification Principle fails at its own criteria - If emotivism is based on that principle and that principle fails within itself, how can we follow the emotivist line of thought?

Context

- Democracy in Greek cities made it desirable to acquire rhetorical skills - Sophists (Greek: wise men) began to travel all around the different cities teaching rhetorical skills and getting paid for it - Sophists were done with previous philosophies of presocratics, the presocratics proposed many different things for the foundation of reality but none of them agreed, through this, nothing could be asserted certainly - Began to wonder how man should behave, is one law valid in one city and valid or not valid in another? Can one law be valid in all of time? - The important thing was to convince others, no matter what was discussed

Prescriptivism

- Developed by R.M Hare, branch of non-cognitivism - Claims that when someone shares a moral statement, they're prescribing or recommending a moral action rather than just sharing a belief - Unlike emotivism, moral statements aren't just describing one's belief, they're also prescribing the universal way a person wants you to act

Moral Absolutism

- Direct opposition to Moral Relativism (MR), form of Deontology - It asserts that some moral values are universal and apply to all people in all circumstances - Then, the nature of morality is not contingent or relative. It's nature is objective. Thus, some moral values eternally true and valid moral code and it applies to all human beings with impartiality. There are moral laws and standards for all human beings, regardless of language, culture, time, or beliefs. And these laws or standards are absolute and unvarying

MA views

- EA recognizes that there are differences among and between cultures on moral customs and moral ideas; however, just becomes some cultures believe something is right morally (or wrong) does not make it right. - We have to discover which views are right or wrong, much like we have discovered truths in the physical sciences. - Wrong moral codes or customs (i.e., slavery) mean that a culture is ignorant. - Morality is in some way objective, not human constructions. Moral principles are real truths that exist independently of human beings. We need to learn what these principles are through a reasoning process. - States that if MR is true we would not be able to make these judgments. But we do make them all the time and we believe we are justified in doing so - Contends that MR is dangerous. If morality is truly rootless and subjective, not tied to any universal foundation, then every sort of action would be morally permissible

Debate for Moral Realism

- If consistency is someone's main issue with moral objectivity, then they have to give up epistemic values in tangent - Rejecting moral objectivity implies rejecting scientific/rational objectivity - One must find a way to argue against the objectivity of moral values which doesn't equally apply to all other values

Strengths of Emotivism

- It doesn't suffer any problems from Moore's Open Question Argument, according to Ayer, moral intuition doesn't meet the Verification Principle so we have no basis to believe in it - Better explains why we have moral disagreements that can't be resolved, it's because what's morally right doesn't exist - Better explains how different cultures and different time periods can have different attitudes towards morality

Aspects of Ethical Subjectivism

- The individual determines what is right and wrong in their lives. - ES has some 'romantic' elements: "being true to myself" or "I have to go with what I believe is right." - Seems to hold to a basic tolerance of moral beliefs, e.g., "I have my moral beliefs, you have yours." - David Hume: An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding - Subjectivism allows one to have a moral preference for a given moral framework it just simultaneously claims that one can't objectively be judged as better

Cultural difference argument

- The nature of morality The premise, "different cultures have different moral codes," leads to the conclusion, "there is no objective moral truth. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion"

Problems with Cultural Difference Argument

- The premise centers on what societies believe; but the conclusion centers on what is the case. Does the conclusion follow from the premise? - Problem: CR's argument attempts to derive something substantial—i.e., "there is no objective moral truth"—from the mere fact that societies disagree about morality - We cannot say whether a society is morally problematic - The idea of moral progress is called into doubt - We can only decide whether our actions are right or wrong by consulting our society

Cultural Relativism

-MR on the social and cultural level. - It is the idea that different cultures have different moral codes. Universal ethics is a myth. The customs of different societies are all that we have; customs cannot be said to be right or wrong. To do so is to suggest something independent of cultures, a standard that can judge what is right or wrong

Claims by CR

1. Different societies have different moral codes 2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least in that society. 3. There is no objective moral standard that can be used to judge whether a society's code is better than another. There is no universal truth of ethics, no moral truths that hold for all people at all times. 4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is one among many. 5. It is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance.

Problems with Ethical Subjectivism

1. ES implies that in the rendering of any moral opinion, each person is incapable of being in error. Julia Driver: Simply thinking something is right doesn't make it right. 2. Another obvious feature of our commonsense moral experience is that from time to time we have moral disagreements but ES implies that such disagreements cannot happen. Julia Driver: Genuine moral disagreement is impossible.

Problems with CR

1. Is it true to say that there is no culture-neutral standard of right and wrong? We could argue that some practices of a culture are indeed bad, if we take into consideration concepts, such as benefit, happiness, or welfare. A question could be asked: Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of people whose lives are affected by it? 2. Why are people reluctant to criticize other cultures? Simply because cultures differ in terms of morality does not mean we cannot judge certain practices to be unjust or bad. We are not critiquing the entire culture, only certain practices. 3. What does culture and society mean? Perhaps we could argue that a smaller culture is self-contained enough to have a shared set of ethical practices and beliefs. However, for larger societies, who speaks for the culture? It is more accurate to say 'cultures' within a broader culture, which means there is no unified set of beliefs and practices.

Arguments Against Ethical Subjectivism

1. No way for parties engaged in ethical debates to resolve their disagreements - Have to acknowledge that their opponent's beliefs are just as factual as their own 2. One can't have a moral disagreement if both sides are morally ideal 3. Blame can't be placed in a conflict if moral truths are always subjective

Views in Sophism

1. We should be skeptical towards claims of Truth. For Sophism, all we have are opinions. The practice of rhetoric suggests that human being cannot know truth in itself or as it is, but only appearances. Truth is beyond us. But we can talk intelligently about things, how they seem to be. The job of the philosopher is to take a position and argue for it. 2. All things are relative. Protagoras' statement is as follows: "Of all things the measure if man: of existing things, that they exist; of non-existing things, that they do not exist." A 'measure' is a standard or criterion to appeal to when deciding what to believe. Protagoras' statement that man is the measure of all things means there is no criterion, no standard, by which we can judge, except ourselves. We cannot jump outside our skins to see how things look bare, and then compare that to how they appear. As they appear to us, so they are.

James Rachels Criticisms

1941-2003, wrote the Challenges of Cultural Relativism which criticized 5 main claims of CR - You could pick and choose what you'd like to out of this system, although there's a contradiction between some of them 1. is true but we have to account for individuals and subcultures BUT this doesn't mean that these codes are entirely different from what's "mainstream" in society 2. is weaker, we're forgetting a fundamental distinction which every society recognizes that believing something to be true and being correct about this because it's true. It's possible that societies could be mistaken over what's a good/wrong thing to do. If not, there's no possibility for progression within the society 3. Rachel says that if this is true, then we're in trouble. Through this, we can't condemn, judge, or analyze cultural practices that are widely recognized as wrong. If we're able to say something's wrong, we need principles that aren't tethered to specific societies, general moral principles basically or moral/human rights. If others argue that this is still a western idea, the west is much broader than what's initially thought of, it's not just the U.S. 4. If this claim is true and they're all equally valid, does this mean they're all equally good? They're not all automatically on the same level 5. Rachel says that this can't necessarily be true to an extent. The premise is true, we're often arrogant when we criticize other cultures and tolerance is generally a good thing, but we shouldn't tolerate anything.

Emotivism

A descriptive ethical theory which holds that all moral judgments are simply expressions of positive or negative feelings and that as such all moral statements are meaningless as they cannot be verified. Made prominent by Logical Positivists and, in particular, A J Ayer and C L Stevenson

Logical Positivists

A group of philosophers that criticized philosophy for its metaphysical and epistemological commitments and assumptions. - This group denied any attempt by philosophers to go outside what language could not verify.

Protagoras

Abdera, Greece, c. 490-c.420 BCE - Embraced ES - Sophist - "Of all things the measure if man: of existing things, that they exist; of non-existing things, that they do not exist." - Man decides what things really are, since the knowledge of reality essentially passes through man, it's assumed that man chooses the conventions we use

Ethical Subjectivism

An extreme version of relativism, each person's values and beliefs are relative to that person alone and cannot be judged externally or objectively

Open Question Argument

Any attempt to reduce moral statements to natural statements is a mistake and morality can't be defined in natural terms

A.J Ayers

Argued that because no moral statements are truth apt, all moral statements are expressions of a person's beliefs, moral statements aren't true, they're just statements of feeling about a certain situation - "Stealing is wrong" = "I believe stealing is wrong" - The initial statement is neither true nor false, it's meaningless - Moral statements aren't analytic or synthetic, thus you can't prove moral statements right or wrong using empirical evidence

Boo-Hurrah theory

As moral statements are just an expression of feeling, "stealing is wrong" equates to "Boo stealing" or "giving to charity is good" equates to "Hurrah charity"

Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory

Both theories argue that there are moral facts, that morality is objective and absolute, and that we do have standards and rules in morality that we must obey and follow

Metaethics

Branch of ethics that deals with the nature of morality. It tries to answer the questions: What is morality? Is morality objective? Where does it come from? What is the relationship between moral facts, if they exist, and this physical world that we interact with?

Non-cognitivism

Branch of metaethics that argues there's no truth or falsity to moral language, all moral statements are not statements of fact, not subject to cognition so morality can't be known

Anthropology and the Abnormal

By Ruth Benedict, argues for cultural relativism - She's saying that different cultures provide codes/matrices which determine what the people within the culture view as right/wrong - She acknowledges the diversity of individuals within cultures but the culture provides a framework where people do or don't find their place, normal or abnormal - Modern civilization from our modern view isn't the pinnacle of human achievement but has the possibility (and hopefully) to change over time - She claims, every society carries its preference farther and farther, further integrating itself completely on this basis discarding unwanted behaviors and converting the most valued traits as aberrant.

C.L Stevenson's Emotivism

Claimed moral statements hold more value than what emotivism initially makes out; moral statements are deeply held beliefs, not just an expression of emotion. Through this, when people make moral statements, they expect others to agree and adopt these beliefs and act how we expect humanity to act

Normality in CR

Culturally defined and is an elaborate term is used to describe the culturally refined within a culture.

Metaphysics

Deals with questions about the nature of reality and being; epistemology deals with questions of knowledge

Modern Moral Philosophy

Elizabeth Anscombe's book - Argued that moral obligation only made sense in the context of divine authority - an authority that had been lost during the church reformation - Claimed that all modern, British philosophers shared the same approach to morality called Consequentialism - This obligation was seen as an obligation from God and, in her view, was outdated for the modern world. - -- She believed that the concept should be dropped and replaced with ethics that concentrate on virtues and the philosophy of psychology - The best way to put this in practice is to use our understanding of what makes people healthy and happy and apply/follow this instead - This had a lasting effect on contemporary virtue ethics

Normative Cultural Relativism

It's not our beliefs, but moral facts that differ culture to culture Criticism: If every culture is the sole arbiter of what's right for it, that means no culture can be wrong

Sophists

Itinerant teachers in ancient Athens and, for a price, would offer their services to wealthy Athenians to teach their sons how to become skilled in the art of rhetoric (the ability to persuade someone to a position, whether true or false, in debate).

Verification Principle

Logical positivists believed that a statement is only truth apt if it's an analytic or synthetic statement

Ethical Theories

Moral foundations that help us come up with consistent answers about right and wrong conduct - All of these have starting assumptions because all of our basic beliefs rest on some basic, assumed beliefs

Moral Subjectivism

Moral statements can be true and false/right or wrong, but they refer to people's attitudes rather than their actions, no moral facts only moral attitudes

Metaethical relativism

Moral truths are actually only true relative to specific groups of people. This means that whether a moral belief is true is dependent on, or relative to, the standpoint of the person or culture that has the belief - moral beliefs and claims are true or false relative to the cultures or standpoints in which they exist

Synthetic statement

Need empirical evidence to be proven right or wrong, something that can be tested by the five sense ("There's a tree at the end of the road")

Normative relativism

No person or culture ought to judge the ethical codes of other cultures as being inferior, nor should any culture intervene in another culture to prevent it from carrying out the specifics of its ethical code - strongest kind of relativism because it goes beyond descriptive and metaethical relativism and makes an even grander claim

Relative to Whom

One of the difficulties with moral relativism in general is answering the question of what a culture is or what counts as an appropriate body of people for morality to be relative to or dependent on

No Room for Social Reform and Progress

One of the strongest objections to relativism is the idea that if relativism is true, then there can be no such thing as social reform or moral progress. If each culture's ethical code is equally good and right, then when a country changes its ethical code from being pro-slavery to being anti-slavery this moral change is merely a change rather an improvement.

Descriptive Cultural Relativism

People's moral beliefs differ from culture to culture

Moral realism

Position that there are mind-independent facts about ethics that are true and binding even if we have beliefs to the contrary - The metaphysical or ontological view that there exist moral facts. Metaphysical says these facts are "independent of us"; ontological says they are part of our being human. We can discover what these facts are by engaging in moral argument and reflection.

Relativism

Relativism takes several forms. - Descriptive ethical relativism maintains that different cultures and societies have differing ethical systems. - Normative ethical relativism claims that each culture's beliefs or value system are right within that culture, and that it is impossible to validly judge another culture's values externally or objectively. As such there are no absolute moral norms. Some relativists hold that moral absolutes may exist but that they are unknowable

Natural Law Theory

Relies on the starting assumption that God created the universe according to a well-ordered plan

Utilitarianism

Relies on the starting assumption that all beings share a common desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain

Gorgias

Sicily, Italy, 5th-4th century B.C 1. "Nothing exists" 2. "If something exists, it cannot be known by man" 3. "If it could be known by man, it certainly could not be communicated" - Sophist - Seems to anticipate Nietzsche's (Nihilism) position around 2,200 years early - There's no reality, and if there was, we can't know it. But even if we could know it, we couldn't communicate it

Views of Truth

Socrates argued that there this, (think of an objective principle, an absolute standard), in both the natural world and moral philosophy, and this was worth pursuing - But the Sophists rejected the claim that moral philosophy, such as values, virtues, and morals, were objectively true. These things were the result of culture and custom. We human beings decide what is true or false in the field of morality

Axiology

Study of value or quality

Cultural Relativism

The form of relativism maintains that that which is good or bad, right or wrong, for a person varies in relation to the culture in which the person lives. These different values are equally valid because there are no moral absolutes (or nor discernible moral absolutes). - -- For example, polygamy is permitted in some non-western societies but a criminal activity in most western societies. Neither position is more valid than the other.

Value

The general term we use to characterize anything that possesses intrinsic worth; it is something we prize, esteem, or regard highly based on clearly defined standards

Descriptive relativism

The idea that moralities and ethical codes are radically different across cultures—and we can observe this

Morally infallible

The individual cannot be wrong with their moral commitments or actions. It also implies that moral disagreement between individuals is nearly impossible.

Some Things are Just Wrong

The most common responses to relativism come in the form of a reductio ad absurdum—a form of argument meant to disprove a view by showing us the difficult or absurd (hence the name) conclusions that the view being responded to would lead to. If the consequences are sufficiently counterintuitive or ridiculous, then we are justified in rejecting the view as being false 1. If relativism is true, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some obviously wrong behaviors are actually morally acceptable simply because some cultures practice them.

Problems with MA

The possibility of conflicting moral standards or rules. Suppose it held to be absolutely wrong to do A in any circumstances and also wrong to do B in any circumstances. - Then what about the case in which a person is faced with the choice between doing A and doing B, when he must do something and no other alternatives are available? This kind of conflict seems to show that moral rules can't be absolute--or at least that there can't be more than absolute rule.

Problem with moral diversity

The scope and profundity of the moral disagreement between cultures - Some realists argue that the differences between moralities in cultures are more due to differences in knowledge about the world than to actual moral disagreement

Consequentialism

The two main strands of this morality being - Utilitarianism: We morally ought to do whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people - Deontology: The Kantian view that we morally ought to do whatever we could simultaneously will to be a universal law

Moral Absolutism

There are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged

Moral anti-realism

There are no mind-independent facts about morality; morality can be constructed or is merely relative to culture - There are no moral facts, nothing objective about them, but neither are moral facts required to make sense of moral practice or decision-making. Nihilism, the view that there is nothing of value or meaning and nothing has real existence, is the extreme view that says morality is a sham.

Problems with MA

There will always be strong disagreements about which moral principles are correct and incorrect

Relativism and Tolerance

This last point ties in with another argument put forward in favor of relativism, namely that it promotes tolerance. Admirably, the relativist wants us to approach the subject of ethics with humility and not rush to condemning behaviors that are different from ours as immoral. The idea is that if we acknowledge that no one culture's ethical code is superior to another, then our ability to practice tolerance naturally increases, for all moralities are equal. Relativism, it is argued, makes moral superiority unjustified.

Grounding Problem

This problem points to the issue of whether we can root moral beliefs in some kind of foundation, a ground, one that would make moral beliefs clear, objective, irrefutable, justified, and unchanging

Analytic statement

True by the meaning alone ("A bachelor is an unmarried man")

Objectivism

Truth is objectively real irrespective of individual or cultural viewpoint or value system. Things that are right and wrong are absolutely right and wrong independent of my culture, how I feel, or my preferences.

Moral relativism

View that ethical codes are relative to the standpoints of the peoples who embrace them

Abnormality in CR

What people don't want, they're seen as wrong, deviant, objects of fear/anger/etc

Most important metaethics questions

Whether there is a moral reality that obligates us regardless of our judgments, opinions, and beliefs and whether there are moral facts that are necessarily and universally true