Ethics- Ch 2

Implications of subjective relativism

individuals are morally infallible and genuine moral disagreement between individuals is nearly impossible

implications of emotivism

people cant disagree over the moral facts bc there are none, presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence one's actions, and nothing is actually good or bad

implications of cultural relativism

that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between people in same culture amount to arguments over whether someone disagrees with their culture, other cultures cant be legitly criticized, and moral progress is impossible

objectivism

the theory that moral truths exist and exist independently of what individuals or societies think of them

Subjective relativism

the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it

cultural relativism

the view that an action is morally right if one's culture approves of it

emotivism

the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes

According to emotivism, how do reasons function in moral discourse?

According to emotivism, reasons function in moral disclosure by not intending to support statements but instead influence the attitudes of others.

According to moral subjectivism, are moral disagreements possible? Why or why not?

According to moral subjectivism, moral disagreements are not possible because attitudes on moral topics differ from person to person.

What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reformers?

Cultural relativism implies that the moral status of social reformers will always be wrong. Their culture is the ultimate authority on moral matters so if social reformers disagreed then they had to be in the wrong.

What is emotivism? How does emotivism differ from objectivism?

Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are an expression of emotions and attitudes and they aren't true or false. Objectivism is the theory that moral truths exist independently from what people or societies think of them.

According to the text, how is it possible for people in different cultures to disagree about moral judgement and still embrace the same fundamental moral principles?

It is possible for people in different culture to disagree about moral judgement but embrace the same moral principles because each person will apply these principles in different ways.

Does objectivism entail intolerance? Why or why not?

Objectivism does entail intolerance because objective principles are set rules with no exceptions and must be applied to every situation and culture in the exact same way.

Does objectivism require absolution? Why or why not?

Objectivism does require absolution because there are no exceptions to them.

How does subjective realism differ from cultural relativism?

Subjective realism is a view that an action is morally right to one person specifically whereas cultural relativism is a view that an action is morally right because that specific culture thinks it is.

How does subjective relativism imply moral infallibility?

Subjective relativism implies moral infallibility because each person is incapable of being wrong. If someone approves of an action and are serious and sincere in that approval, then that action is morally right to them.

What is the argument for cultural relativism? Is the argument sound? Why or why not?

The argument for cultural relativism is inferences of differences in moral beliefs of cultures and that cultures make morality. This argument is sound because the logic is solid, the argument is valid, and the conclusion follows the premises.

Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture? Why or why not?

The diversity of moral outlooks in cultures does not show that right and wrong are determined by culture because since there is clearly disagreements among cultures of what is right and wrong. So, right and wrong are not determined by culture because moral outlooks are not universal.

What is the emotivist view of moral disagreements?

The emotivist view of moral disagreement is that they are not conflicts of belief but actually disagreements in attitudes

Is there a necessary connection between cultural relativism and tolerance? Why or why not?

There is no connection between cultural relativism and tolerance because cultural relativism cannot consistently advocate tolerance and intolerance could be just as easily justified.