* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Document
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Value (ethics) wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Moral psychology wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
The Sovereignty of Good wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
A Comparative Reconstruction of Moral Relativism Mary I. Bockover Professor Humboldt State University Arcata, California United States of America Revised 6-06 Overall Sections Moral Relativism Incommensurable Conflict American Involvement in the War in Iraq Moral Relativism [& The Philosophy of Mind] “Moral relativism” is the view that there is no objective “universal” moral standard to decide the truth of moral judgments, or to resolve conflicts between them. “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted “nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted “nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted “nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment grows is universal “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted “nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment grows is universal moral judgment is relative despite this common ground, or will depend on what is valued (even within the same cultural context this can vary dramatically) “Moral Relativism” traditionally resulted from a debate that took the universal and the diverse to be mutually exclusive – i.e., either morality is universal or it is (culturally) relative, but not both. the philosophical counterpart to a debate in the social sciences that contrasted “nature” and “nurture” in the same mutually exclusive way the distinction between the “universal” and the “diverse” in ethics is a false dichotomy; morality can be both universal and diverse moral consciousness, the normative “ground” from which moral judgment grows is universal moral judgment is relative despite this common ground, or will depend on what is valued (even within the same cultural context this can vary dramatically) Moral consciousness is too general to resolve conflict. More generally, distinctions can be made within the range of human consciousness: in different “ways” – rational, moral, aesthetic, spiritual – that we can exp erience ourselves and the world around us. My “believing” X is wrong is not sufficient to capture the kind of conscious appraisal that goes into my mo ral judgment that it is wrong: my judgment entails an even more basic moral value that is experienced as a good-in-itself. Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is based on some other competing value Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is based on some other competing value Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is based on some other competing value Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a “first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is based on some other competing value Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a “first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory A “first principle” articulates the most fundamental value of a particular view, e.g., “happiness”, “freedom”, “benevolence” Moral Values, Judgments, Principles & Truth A moral value is entailed in more specific moral judgments Moral judgment deems that some value should be put into practice, or some practice stopped that is in violation of it or is based on some other competing value Ordinarily what we value the most is not reflectively identified and defined; the work of (second-order) ethics A moral value can be reflectively articulated so to constitute a “first principle”, e.g., of an ethical theory A “first principle” articulates the most fundamental value of a particular view, e.g., “happiness”, “freedom”, “benevolence” Moral judgments are value-judgments, and are relative because there is no independent, objective standard that can determine their truth or resolve conflicts between them Moral Relativism & Incommensurable Conflict An adequate account of moral relativism can best be given in light of incommensurable conflict: a conflict between moral judgments. On this level (entailed) moral values have come to be mutually exclusive in a certain context, that is, where one value can only be held at the expense of the other. Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable First, there are so many values that can be the most fundamental (first) principle for those who believe in them Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable First, there are so many values that can be the most fundamental (first) principle for those who believe in them Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is judged to have moral priority by one person, group, or culture, etc., and this conflicts with another value judged to have moral priority by another person, group, or culture Why a Moral Conflict Becomes Incommensurable First, there are so many values that can be the most fundamental (first) principle for those who believe in them Second, circumstances are such that one of these values is judged to have moral priority by one person, group, or culture, etc., and this conflicts with another value judged to have moral priority by another person, group, or culture And third, the normative nature of moral judgment is such that deciding which value is superior can only appeal back to what is valued instead of a common standard which could objectively determine their truth The Problem of Moral Incommensurability The Problem of Moral Incommensurability • Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root The Problem of Moral Incommensurability • • Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root There is no way to get outside of one’s own “values system” to judge which view is ultimately right or wrong, better or worse, without begging the question of what should be valued the most The Problem of Moral Incommensurability • • • Moral consciousness is the universal ground from which moral value grows; but paradoxically also supplies the ground from which moral difference, even incommensurable conflict, takes root There is no way to get outside of one’s own “values system” to judge which view is ultimately right or wrong, better or worse, without begging the question of what should be valued the most Objective arguments can only be made based on whether the reasons used to justify putting some value into practice are consistent, or whether the supporting facts are sound The Conflict in Iraq People of good will can hold differing, and even incommensurable views on this subject. The standoff in the American case this time started after President Bush announced in 2003 that the U.S.A. would take almost unilateral responsibility for protecting itself and the world against Iraq’s continued manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq (under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush, Sr.) Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq (under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush, Sr.) Iraq’s contempt for the United Nations Some Reasons for the War “Support our Troops” Clear proof that WMD had been manufactured Clear proof that Iraq had capacity to deliver them A dramatically conflicted relationship between Iraq (under Hussein) and the U.S.A. (since George Bush, Sr.) Iraq’s contempt for the United Nations Evidence gathered by the Security Council of Iraqi terrorist cells Evidence (here lacking) of WMD production alone does not legally justify invading another country: there are many countries with WMD and the clear capacity to deliver them, but we do not invade them in the name of national defense. This capacity must pose a clear and direct threat to the invading country in order for it to be justified, and our fear – legitimate or not – was critical to our feeling threatened. Some Reasons against the War “Peace is Patriotic” Some Reasons against the War “Peace is Patriotic” On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional – cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who intentionally does even worse Some Reasons against the War “Peace is Patriotic” On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional – cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who intentionally does even worse Like the French and Germans, many Americans also thought there was not enough evidence that WMD were still being produced to make the national defense argument succeed Some Reasons against the War “Peace is Patriotic” On principle or on religious grounds, believing that the inevitable loss of innocent life – though not intentional – cannot be justified even if the goal is to remove a despot who intentionally does even worse Like the French and Germans, many Americans also thought there was not enough evidence that WMD were still being produced to make the national defense argument succeed Still others held that even if there were, war was not justified at the time because of the lack of international support Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by the war Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by the war Critical differences in value between Iraqi culture and ours, e.g, the value of political freedom that we take to be an “inalienable” and “universal” human right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world, including much of Iraq, does not obviously share Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by the war Critical differences in value between Iraqi culture and ours, e.g, the value of political freedom that we take to be an “inalienable” and “universal” human right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world, including much of Iraq, does not obviously share Failure to have a clear exit strategy (and this administration has said that U.S. armed forces will likely remain in Iraq for at least a decade) Critique Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Failure to get greater U.N. support and to find evidence of WMD Failure to provide adequate support for the many innocent Iraqis harmed by the war Critical differences in value between Iraqi culture and ours, e.g, the value of political freedom that we take to be an “inalienable” and “universal” human right derives from a Western concept of person that most of the world, including much of Iraq, does not obviously share Failure to have a clear exit strategy (and this administration has said that U.S. armed forces will likely remain in Iraq for at least a decade) Iraq is the second largest untapped oil source in the world, and that the American way of life has made no great strides to become less dependent on fossil fuel (oil factor argument) Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it Americans often can afford to take the idealistic perspective of judging peace to have moral priority over freedom (the political freedom of Iraqi people) since their freedom is not directly at stake, while (military) American life is Support Abroad of U.S.A.’s Invasion of Iraq Given that legal and moral justifications are related, but distinct, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 could, after the fact, be deemed illegal but could also be deemed moral or even obligatory on different grounds One reason the U.N. was established after WWII was to keep despots like Hitler and Stalin from coming to power and reeking havoc on the world again; no longer a legal justification for war but still could be a moral one So it was argued that removing Hussein was morally justified, as long as innocent civilian life was not intentionally sacrificed to do it Americans often can afford to take the idealistic perspective of judging peace to have moral priority over freedom (the political freedom of Iraqi people) since their freedom is not directly at stake, while (military) American life is It is important for Americans to remember the lessons of WWI and WWII, especially from the perspective of those who required the help of others to preserve their own freedom and did not get it (or did not get it in time) I have described the moral scenario in Iraq in terms of an incommensurable conflict of values – between maintaining world peace and protecting political freedom – that could not be simultaneously held at the time the war was declared. What has been shown is that people of good will can come to have conflicting, even incommensurable values in such a context, and can also change their minds along with changes in circumstance. This shift in moral priority occurs when a different value becomes the most important, and we have seen this is context dependent, for example, depending upon whether the “facts” supporting the value are true or really facts. As moral agents concerned with the world we live in, we develop our values through learning the facts, and also through learning about the values of others, even those who are very different from us. That is all we have, but it is no small accomplishment. The End