Download Ethical Relativism

Ethical Relativism
Adam Moore
I. Ethical Relativism — holds that moral
principles are chosen by groups or
cultures. The moral rightness or
wrongness of acts is dependent on the
society/culture/region that you are a part
of. Moreover, there are no non-relativized
moral standards that are correct, –i.e.
there are no moral standards that hold
across all societies.
II. Cultural Relativism — is
descriptive, it describes human
behavior (it does not prescribe
action).
– different societies have different beliefs
and moral principles
–they have different customs
–they have different mores - kinds of
behavior considered improper –e.g.
covering feet or head
–they also have different moral beliefs and
moral codes/principles.
E.G. Baffin Island - Innuit Eskimos
-when a person gets so old that they
cannot produce their share they are left
in a remote spot to die of exposure.
1. Note: Ethical relativism goes
beyond CR and claims that each of
these different moral
principles/codes is equally correct.
Diplomatic Immunity Laws are
based on this reasoning.
Why think that our moral codes are
the only correct ones - different
people have be raised differently and we cannot judge them or their
moral codes/standards.
Nuremberg trials 1946 - the
defense argued that Nazi's could
not be held to moral codes outside
their culture. The defense did not
work - crimes against humanity
were said to hold across all cultures.
III. The Argument For Ethical Relativism:
1. Diversity Thesis: Moral rightness and wrongness of
actions vary from society to society, so there are no
universal moral standards held by all societies
(CR).
2. Dependency Thesis: Whether or not it is right for
individuals to act in a certain way depends on (or is
relative to) the society to which they belong.
3. Therefore, there are no absolute or objective moral
standards that apply to all people everywhere.

The ethical relativist goes beyond cultural
relativism and claims that each of the
different moral principles found in different
cultures are equally correct. It is not
merely that different societies have
different moral codes and principles, but
that each of these moral principles are just
as correct as any other.
IV. Subjectivism (Radical Individualized Ethical
Relativism):
Since it is possible for moral principles to be
relativized to individuals we must consider this
kind of relativism. Here morality is "in the eye of
the beholder." What is right, just, fair, and good
for one individual might be wrong, unjust, unfair,
and evil for another. More importantly, each of
the different moral principles that different
individuals affirm are equally correct.
A. Problem: Morality becomes a
useless concept — little or no
interpersonal criticism or
judgment is logically possible.
You cannot condemn Ted Bundy
for killing others for fun because
he is following a correct moral
principle. One that is just as
correct as "Don't kill innocent
people if you can help it." Bundy
and Hitler become just as moral
as Gandhi — each were
following their own correct moral
principles.
V. Relativism and Tolerance:
Perhaps the primary motivation
most non-philosophers have for
accepting relativism is based on
a perceived connection between
relativism and tolerance. (Some
philosophers are relativists, but I
know of none that offer this as a
reason.) There is, indeed, a
connection between relativism
and tolerance—but it is not at all
the one that relativists think is
there.
A. The putative (assumed) connection:
-- the ethical relativist thinks that ER ‘buys’ toleration. .
.if ER is true how can we morally condemn others?
Singer
B. The confusion:
Can ER actually provide a defense of moral
toleration?
If a given society has no aversion to
intolerance toward the practices of others,
then the relativist cannot claim that there is
anything (objectively) wrong with their
intolerance.
“If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The
Warmth And Compassion To Do So. . . Compassion, tolerance, understanding,
basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could
have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He
didn't. It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am
is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that
way. Why is that so hard to understand?” The Onion God • Issue 45•42 • Oct 13, 2009
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty . . . based on an absolutist
moral theory, utilitarianism. . .provides a defense of
moral toleration.
Patrick Devlin’s The Enforcement of Morality, which
argues for legal sanctions against prostitution and
homosexuality, is based on a version of moral relativism.
Devlin believes that morality is just a matter of shared,
strongly held attitudes, and, so, the fact that our culture
strongly opposes these actions just is a moral
condemnation of them.
C. Avoiding the confusion: To avoid the
confusion one must be very clear about at
least the two following distinctions.
a. The moral evaluation of an action and the moral
evaluation of interference with that action: It is quite
possible for an action to be morally wrong but for it to
also be wrong to interfere with others' performance of
that action. Perhaps, it might even be wrong to
publicly condemn an action that it is wrong to perform.
b. The moral evaluation of an action and the moral
evaluation of the agent who performs it: Even good
people do bad things often because they have false
beliefs, don't understand the nature or consequences
of their actions, or don't have the intellectual character
that allows them to abstract from current practices
and reflect on them. Because of this, it may well be
incorrect to judge a person as morally deficient even if
he performs an action that is morally atrocious.
V. Problems: ER + CR
On this view moral principles are
conventions that are adopted by different
societies and cultures. Once again, the
claim is that different moral principles
found in different cultures are equally
correct.
A. Problems for the Diversity Thesis:
ER includes CR and maybe CR is not true in its claims
about moral codes/principles. Maybe the differences we
see in different societies are differences in factual belief,
but not in moral codes.
e.g. Eskimos
|
Honor your parents.
|
die of exposure
Canada
|
Honor your parents.
|
old folks home
The moral principle is the same for both cultures, the
difference is in what is the best way to honor your
parents.
B. Problems for the Dependency Thesis:
1. We know of many cases where different
groups of people have different beliefs about
the same subject. But, we would never
conclude that these beliefs are equally
correct. e.g. the shape of the earth. Why
think an argument like this is any better in
ethics?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
2. Suppose that some culture is asked to justify (give
arguments) for some moral principle. If they can give
such an argument then they will have refuted ER,
because arguments are universal. E.g. if I can give a
sound argument that shows that it is wrong to kill
innocent people in a certain range of case, then this
principle will hold across these cases independent of
time, culture, or religion. If would seem that
justification/arguments destroys ER.
If there is no good justification for some moral
principle, then why think that following it is right, just,
fair, and good?
3. Ethical Relativism leads to absurd conclusions.
Suppose that we found a lost island in the South
Pacific that held the following moral rules. Cause
pain and suffering to as many people as possible. Kill
any child that looks an adult in the eyes. Torture
women for fun on the first day of the month. Burn at
the stake any woman or child who disobeys a
command.
The ethical relativist must say that this set of moral
rules is just as correct as our rules that prohibit these
activities. In fact if Jones, a member of this island,
fails to follow one of these rules the ethical relativist
must say that he is immoral.
4. ER can’t explain “moral progress”
5. ER can’t provide a solid foundation for
toleration.
6. How do we define the group to which
ethics is relativized? Americans, hockey
players, ??
Conclusion: It is generally thought that 1 –
6 provide a conclusive case against ER.