* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Pojman against Relativism
Utilitarianism wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Stephen Toulmin wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Nagel wikipedia , lookup
Paleoconservatism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
The Sovereignty of Good wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Ethical Relativism Relevant Terms Subjective Relativism (Subjectivism) —The view that right actions are those sanctioned by a person Cultural Relativism (Conventionalism) — The view that right actions are those sanctioned by one’s culture Moral Objectivism —The view that there are moral norms or principles that are valid or true for everyone The argument for Relativism P1. Beliefs about what is right and wrong differ across cultures (the Diversity thesis). P2. What is right and wrong is dependent upon, or relative to, culture (the Dependency thesis). -- C. Thus, there is no objective right and wrong. The argument appears valid, and thus to defeat the conclusion Pojman will need to defeat at least one of the premises. P1 is simply a statement of fact, and thus hard to overcome. Thus the weaker premise is P2. The strength of P2 resides in the nature of the dependency implied by the premise, i.e. what degree of dependency does the relativist require to uphold the conclusion, and can sufficient fault be found to undermine the argument? Strong vs. Weak Dependency Weak Dependency - expressions of a moral belief X can differ across culture Strong Dependency - the moral belief X itself can differ across culture To make the argument stick, the relativist is going to have to claim strong dependence. The attack on P2 If relativism is correct, it leads to two possible interpretations: Subjectivism: morality is dependent on individuals, not culture Conventionalism: morality is dependent on culture For Pojman’s attack to be successful, he will have to show that both subjectivism and conventionalism are false. Subjectivism leads to absurd conclusions Conventionalism collapses into Subjectivism 'morality' has no meaning no interpersonal criticism is possible How do we determine what a society is? How is reform possible within a conventionalist system? No intercultural moral critique is possible. In addition, relativism (in both forms) entails tolerance. If so, then relativism entails at least one objective moral value (tolerance). If so, then relativism is not true for all moral values. Alternatives to Relativism Moral Objectivism- there are some (at least one) universalizable moral principles. Moral Absolutism - there are some (at least one) universalizable moral principles which are inviolable. The nature of universalizable principles Alleviation of suffering Avoid/resolve social conflicts Promote human flourishing/survival Pojman’s argument for Objectivism P1. Objective moral principles are those adherence to which meet the needs and promote the most significant needs of persons. P2. Some principles are such that adherence to them meets and promotes the significant needs of persons. -- C1. Thus, there are some objective moral rules.