Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Social anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Dual inheritance theory wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Cultural ecology wikipedia , lookup
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making wikipedia , lookup
Cultural anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Tatianna Griffin Test 1 PHIL 308-50 Cultural Relativism is a metaethical theory under forms of subjectivism. Metaethics is the attempt to understand the fundamental nature of values and evaluate expressions or statements. Subjectivism involves how moral terms refer to subjective properties and how moral claims are subjectively true or false. The theory of Cultural Relativism states that for any act token, A, “A is morally right” if A is not prohibited by the moral code of the society of A at the time the act was performed. The Cultural Differences Argument states that: 1. Different societies have different moral codes. 2. If difference societies have different moral codes, then Cultural Relativism is true. 3. Therefore, Cultural Relativism is true. 1,2 MP. It is a valid argument that starts off by stating that different moral codes are present in different societies. It could be true or false; however, if it were true, then stating that different societies have different moral codes provides evidence to the fact that not all things accepted or seen as “morally right” in one culture are accepted or seen as “morally right” in another culture. Moral codes can be distinctly and vastly different, allowing for certain act tokens to be deemed socially acceptable and “morally right” while those act tokens may not be in other moral codes. Premise 2 states that if Premise 1 is true, then the whole theory of cultural relativism is true. Cultural Relativism is based on different societies having different moral codes. Without different moral codes, there would not be a difference in “morally right” and accepted act tokens. It would simply be a moral code shared by all societies where moral claims are subjective and all act tokens that are “morally right” will be morally right to everyone and all “morally wrong” act tokens will be wrong to everyone. The differences in moral codes in different societies are the primary basis for the argument of Cultural Relativism. Moral reformers play a huge part in formulating a response to cultural relativism. A moral reformer is someone who believes that some acts permitted or prohibited by the moral code of his or her society are in fact morally wrong or morally right. The Reformer’s Dilemma states that: 1. If Cultural Relativism is true, then every moral reformer is mistaken. 2. It is not the case that every moral reformer is mistaken. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Cultural Relativism is true. 1,2 MT. This poses a problem for moral reformers because if cultural relativism is true, a person who thinks an act token in a different society is “morally wrong” is mistaken because that act token could be seen as “morally right” in their society. On the other hand, if moral reformers are not mistaken, then cultural relativism is not true. Moral claims can be solely based on society through Cultural Relativism, and if reformers have cases where acts that are permitted or prohibited are actually morally wrong or right, then cultural relativism cannot be true because if a reformer can prove that a prohibited act in a different society is actually “morally right,” then it is. Therefore, with the Reformer’s Dilemma, Cultural Relativism cannot be true. If Cultural Relativism was true, then there would not be world famous moral reformers such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The idea that moral claims are born through the conventions of historic and modern society has been on the rise ever since father of American Anthropology, Franz Boas, introduced Social Anthropology to the U.S. He and other social anthropologists have developed more subtle approaches to the idea of Cultural Relativism, but there are some claims and aspects that have remained constant. Cultural relativists use different aspects to justify their position on the theory and argument. They use a combination of conceptual, empirical, and normative considerations in order to explain their support for Cultural Relativism. A couple of claims that cultural relativists use as justification state that, “(a) The empirical observation that there is a significant degree of diversity in norms, values and beliefs across cultures and historic periods, known as descriptive relativism. (b) An inductive argument to the effect that failures in previous attempts to resolve disagreements arising from (a) show that there are no universal criteria for adjudicating between different world-views. (c) The methodological assumption that human behavior and thought carry the imprint of their cultural and social context such that biology by itself is not sufficient for explaining many of their most important features, especially those with respect to which cultures differ. (d) The normative principle of a need for tolerance and acceptance towards other points of view, which leads to so-called “normative or prescriptive cultural relativism,” or the positions that cultural relativism is a moral requirement” (Baghramian & Carter). Their justifications simply show non-cultural relativists that by observing different cultures, one can see that there is a vast amount of diversity in the cultures and societies across the world and across time periods. They explain that if there are any issues with claim a, that there are no universal guidelines for what is morally right or wrong or for what is socially accepted or frowned upon. They explain that genetic and biological contrasts are not sufficient for explaining cultural differences and a difference in how humans view morally right and wrong acts. For their last point of justification, cultural relativists claim that there is a need for acceptance of all other points of view, and if that need exists then there must be a difference in points of view. There are also objections to these claims that cultural relativists use to justify their position. A lot of anthropologists and biologists have made claims that dispute the extent to which the empirical considerations should be used. “Kinship, death and its attendant rituals of mourning, birth, the experience of empathy, expressions of sympathy and fear, and the biological needs that give rise to these, are some of the constant elements of human experience that belie the seeming diversity reported by ethnographers (Brown 2004)” (Baghramian & Carter). With that they are trying to say how certain basic human acts and needs are universally shared by everyone and do not serve as substantial evidence to support the diversity in cultures explained by cultural relativists. There are also scientists who dispute claim c because they believe there are biological and evolutionary approaches that explain what is common to all cultures even if they have slight differences. “Other critics, Pope Benedict XVI for instance, in his very first homily delivered upon election (18 April 2005), reject and condemn prescriptive cultural relativism as a harbinger of nihilism and an “anything goes” extreme permissiveness” (Baghramian & Carter). There are many critics, including Pope Benedict XVI, that dismiss claim d supported by cultural relativists. There are more arguments against Cultural Relativism than for it, and more arguments for the Reformer’s Dilemma than against it. “If morality, as Cultural Relativism argues it is, is nothing more and nothing less than what a particular culture says is right or wrong, then MLK, Ghandi and other social reformers are very simply immoral. They disagreed with the central norms of their culture, i.e. what was in fact ‘right’. So they were ‘morally wrong’ for protesting” (Chiariello). If Cultural Relativism is true, then disagreeing with what is seen as “right” in a certain culture makes a moral reformer mistaken and immoral. Simple, or Individual/Personal, Subjectivism (SS) is another form of metaethical subjectivism. SS states that for any person, P, that says, “x is morally right or wrong,” then P means the same thing as if P said, “I approve or disapprove of x.” For example, if Joe was walking down the street and saw an act that he thinks is morally wrong, then that would be the same thing as Joe saying he disapproves of that act. The Infallibility Argument refers to a person’s moral infallibility. Moral Infallibility refers to when a person makes moral claims that are automatically true due to the fact that it is impossible for him or her to be mistaken about what is morally right or wrong. The Moral Infallibility Argument states as follows: 1. If SS is true, then we are all morally infallible. 2. It is not the case that we are all morally infallible. 3. Therefore, SS is false. If the theory of Simple Subjectivism is true, then everyone is “infallible with respect to moral judgments” (Rachels). The fact of the matter is, people are not morally infallible because what they think is a morally wrong act, could be a morally right act. If Joe was walking down the street and in the house next door he hears crashing and loud noises and voices, and yells out “that is morally wrong!” But in reality, it is young children playing a pretend battle game with one another, and there is nothing morally wrong with that. Therefore, Joe would not be infallible. It is not the case that we are all morally infallible because moral judgments differ and no one is ever always right. Therefore, SS is false based on the sole fact that no one is always right on every moral claim they make. They can change their minds or come to the conclusion that they were originally wrong. Subjectivists have come back with reasons why the Infallibility Argument does not rule out Simple Subjectivism. “Simple Subjectivism improves on it by indexing moral properties to subjects and referring to dispositions to cause responses rather than actual responses. What makes something wrong-for-Mary, for example, is that Mary would disapprove of it, were she aware of it. A related relativist proposal is that something is wrong-for-Mary if and only if Mary accepts a normative standard or framework that prohibits it (Harman 1975)” (Kauppinen). What she is saying is that Premise 2 of the Infallibility Argument is false, and that a moral claim is true if the person is aware of it and accepts the foundation of where the claim came from. On the other hand, it is true that no one is infallible because observations can change conclusions of thoughts and moral claims. “We are sometimes wrong in our evaluations; and when we discover that we are mistaken, we may want to correct our judgments. But if Simple Subjectivism were correct, this would be impossible, because Simple Subjectivism implies that each of us is infallible” (Rachels). SS is not plausible because of the fact that no one is capable of making all right moral claims. Minds can change and people can realize that what moral claims they have made are wrong, which makes them fallible. Works Cited Maria Baghramien & J. Adam Carter. “Relativism”. Sept 11, 2015. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#CulRel Paul Chiariello. “Cultural Relativism: 4 Arguments For & Against”. May 31, 2013. http://appliedsentience.com/2013/05/31/cultural-relativism-4-argumentsfor-against/ James Rachels. “Subjectivism”.http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/emotive.pdf James Rachels. “Subjectivism in Ethics”. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/104_Master_File/104_Readings/Rachels/Subjec tivism%20in%20Ethics.pdf Antti Kauppinen. “Moral Sentimentalism”. January 29, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-sentimentalism/#SubRel