Ch 19: Ethical Relativism
What is Moral Nihilism?
(1/2 form of moral skepticism) the view that there are no moral truths at all
What is cultural relativism?
(1/2 varieties of ethical relativism) claims that correct moral standards are relative to cultures & societies -society has final say about what is right/wrong -a moral judgement is true just because it correctly describes what a society really stands for
What is ethical relativism?
(2/2 form of moral skepticism) some moral rules really are correct, and these determine which moral claims are true & which are false -but these standards are not objectively correct & are only relative to a person or society. Merely a human construct. -correct to a person/society because they are deeply committed to it, but there is no moral blueprint that is universal -PEOPLE are the authors of morality (morality is made up for and by human beings; if our species becomes extinct, morality will cease to exist)
What is ethical subjectivism (also known as individual relativism)?
(2/2 varieties of ethical relativism) claims that correct moral standards are those endorsed by each individual -individual has final say about what is right/wrong -a moral judgement is true if it accurately reports one's feelings or commitments, & is false otherwise
Suppose Larry says, "Abortion is morally wrong." If ethical subjectivism is true, how is it possible to Larry to be mistaken about that?
(???) If Larry doesn't believe that abortion is actually morally wrong (it conflicts with his deeply held commitments)
If subjectivism is true, is it good, generally speaking, to keep your promises?
(???) Only if you like to
If subjectivism is true, why does it make no sense to suppose that you might be wondering whether your moral commitments are worthwhile, or correct? For example, suppose you are wondering whether it is wrong for you to look down on homosexuals. If subjectivism is true, that doesn't make any sense. Why?
-because you know what is right so long as you know what you approve of -this doesn't make sense with subjectivism because one's approvals and disapprovals are the ULTIMATE test of right & wrong
And what is the problem with this proposed solution?
-contradictions disappear but so does does moral disagreement
Dan is gay, and is an active member of Seattle's gay community. He is also a Catholic. He belongs to these two groups (sub-cultures, we might call them) simultaneously. The Catholic community disapproves of homosexuality, whereas the gay community (obviously) does not. If cultural relativism is true, is it wrong for Dan to be gay?
-cultural relativists escape this problem by claiming that moral judgements are only true relative to social agreements -not talking about anything else other than how society feels about issues; and that determines what is right/wrong ex) eating meat *is accepted by my social customs* & eating meat *is not accepted by my social customs* -here moral disagreement vanishes Yes & no. There is a contradiction here because the two societies have clashing beliefs (and no beliefs can be superior to another)
If subjectivism is true, why are individuals morally infallible (at least with regard to their most foundational ethical principles)?
-individual personal conviction is the ultimate measure of morality & there is thus no "superior" moral code that can measure the accuracy of each person's moral outlook. -each person's moral standards are equally plausible -moral principles can be based off of brainwashing, superficial thinking, and prejudice AND still be true (it doesn't matter where the beliefs came from--relativist claims that our ultimate moral beliefs cannot be mistaken)
If subjectivism is true, how can an individual make a moral mistake?
-true subjectivism allows that people can make moral mistakes, but only if they fail to realize what follows from their own commitments. The basic commitments themselves can never be false or immoral -individual approvals = ultimate test for morality
...
...
What are the problems with the Ideal Observer version of subjectivism?
1) there may be disagreements among ideal observers 2) conflicting choices make contradictions (which fatally undermine any theory that contain them)
If subjectivism is correct, why is no moral outlook any better or worse than anyone else's?
Because ethical subjectivism is a doctrine of moral equivalence; everyone's basic moral views are as plausible as everyone else's
If either subjectivism or cultural relativism is true, then "the ultimate moral principles... can be based on prejudice, ignorance, superficial thinking, or brainwashing, and still be correct." Why?
Because it doesn't matter WHERE the moral belief originated from. No matter how we came by them, our/the society's ultimate moral beliefs can never be false, immoral, or mistaken.
Anne says, "abortion is immoral" and Mary says, "abortion is not immoral". If subjectivism is true, which of them is correct?
Different moral codes are not better than one another, they are morally equivalent.
If subjectivism is true, whose moral outlook is superior: Gandhi's or Hitler's?
Neither. Everyone's is just as plausible and have a moral view as good as anyone else's.
If cultural relativism is true, is it possible for one person's moral views to be better (more correct) than another persons? If so, how? If not, why not?
No. cultural relativists deny that everyone's moral views are equally plausible. Some are wiser/more moral than others. BUT, when it comes to evaluating the basic codes of each society, relativists must allow that every code is good (and those that treat women as property as just as good as those who do not)
If cultural relativism is true, which society has the better moral outlook: a society that treats women as property or a society which treats women as equals to men?
They are each equally morally attractive.
What is an ideal observer?
Those (probably imaginary) people who are fully informed, perfectly rational, and otherwise perfectly suited to determine the content of morality
Do ethical relativists believe that there are true moral claims?
Yes, but these claims are not objective (but rather subjective to a person/society) -There are legitimate moral standards (contrary to nihilism), but their legitimacy depends crucially on on our support (contrary to objectivism)
What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong according to the "Ideal Observer" version of subjectivism?
act is morally right just because *I would favor it were I fully informed and perfectly rational*
What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong according to the "Ideal Observer" version of cultural relativism?
acts are morally right because *society would approve of them were its members fully informed and rational*
If cultural relativism is true, why is it impossible for a society's moral beliefs to be wrong? (at least in regard to their foundational principles)
because society has the final say about what is right & wrong -society's most cherished ideals can never be immoral since they are the ultimate moral standards for each society -"honor killings" in many cultures against women, under cultural relativism, are all legitimate moral duties because of the values of the society -cultural relativism would turn these core ideals (purity of women in family) into ironclad moral duties (making cooperation with slavery sexism, and racism, the moral duty of all citizens in those societies)
The United States, as a society, has been undergoing a tremendous amount of change in its beliefs about the morality of homosexuals and in particular the morality of gay marriage. If cultural relativism is true, then the statement, "the society is trying to determine if its moral convictions about gay marriage should be changed" is meaningless. Why?
different moral codes are not better or worse than one another, they are morally equivalent
If subjectivism does not generate contradictions, then moral disagreement . . .
is impossible -if all that moral judgements do is report people's outlooks, then there is no way to morally disagree with anyone who is speaking sincerely.
The United States used to condone slavery. The society used to believe that slavery was morally okay. But now, as a society, we do not. Now we think it is completely immoral and terrible. You might say that we have improved, morally, as a society. But if cultural relativism is true, you cannot say that we have morally improved. Why not?
it cannot be called moral progress, only a change in the moral code because to measure a moral progress you need a standard and in ethics the standard is the ultimate moral rules -in relativsism this is a society's basic ideals -in subjectivism this is personal opinion
What is the proposed solution for the problem of moral contradictions in subjectivism?
say that our moral assertions report facts only about our own commitments. -subjectivists have to understand all moral judgements as reports of personal approval or disapproval. -solution implies that we don't mean what we say in moral debates -accuses almost everyone of not understanding their own moral claims -the death penalty is wrong *according to me* -*I* disapprove of abortion -*As I see it*, eating animals is ok
What is Moral Skepticism?
the denial of objective moral standards (& morality lacks any real authority)
What is Ethical Objectivism?
the view that some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true
Dennis used to think that rape jokes were funny. But now he thinks that they're mean and that they perpetuate sexist attitudes (which he now believes are bad) and so he thinks telling rape jokes is ethically bad behavior. When he tells people about his change, he says, "I have made some improvements in my moral belief system." But if subjectivism is true, then that statement doesn't make sense. Why?
this is not "improving" moral standards, just changing them. You cannot improve or progress moral standards because the ultimate rule is personal opinion. When that changes, so does the rule. There is no improvement.
Where do cultural relativists locate the ultimate standard of morality?
within each culture's commitments (an act is morally acceptable just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed)
