Ethical_Relativism.ppt

(1)

Similar to Divine Command

Theory

•Answer to fundamental

question: What is the

right-making or wrong-right-making

characteristic of people or acts?

(2)

An act or personality trait is morally

good iff (if and only if) God approves

the act or trait.

Corollaries:

(3)

An act or personality trait is morally bad iff God disapproves the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad iff God neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait.

call “approval” theories. Sometimes they are called “conventionalist” theories.

(4)

X = 1

X > 1

Monotheistic Divine

Command Theory (MDCT)

Polytheistic Divine

Command Theory (PDCT) Subjective

Ethical Relativism

(SER)

Cultural Ethical Relativism (CER)

Number of said

(5)

(ifand only if) God approves the act or trait. Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad iff God disapproves the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad iff God neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait.

In Discussing DCT, we noted some logical consequences, that will have parallels in the other two cells of the matrix.

SER MDCT

(6)

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad iff God neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait, OR if it is the case that there is at least one God that approves, and one that disapproves.

Under PDCT, if an act is approved or commanded by one God, and disapproved or forbidden by

another it is either:

Both morally good and bad, Or,

Neither morally good nor bad, which led us to revise the last corollary (if you all remember that day!):

MDCT

(7)

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad iff God neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait, OR if it is the case that there is at least on God that approves, and one that disapproves.

Under MDCT, if an act is approved or commanded by the one God, and then at a later time,

disapproved or forbidden:

The act is morally good at time (t1) and bad at time (t2),

If the one God would have had a different

attitude, then the act would have had a contrary moral property, or an opposed moral property.

SER MDCT

(8)

iff (if and only if) I approve it. Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff I disapprove the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff I neither approve nor disapprove the act or trait.

Today, we look at the other two cells of this chart. Under SER the definition and corollaries run:

Now, the question is raised: Why would this

position be considered plausible? What factors of day-to-day moral life would make us think that what is right or wrong for us as individuals really hinges upon what we feel is right or wrong for us?

SER

(9)

me iff (if and only if) I approve it.

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff I disapprove the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff I neither approve nor disapprove the act or trait.

There are often stubbornly resistant disagreements in moral matters. Some

examples? Abortion, Enhanced Interrogation, Stem Cell Research

People do often ‘agree to disagree.’ They do

often say things like: ‘what’s right for your is right for you, but that doesn’t make it right for me.’

So, SER, if adopted, would seem to allow room for tolerance.

But, there are logical consequences of SER:

SER

(10)

for me iff (if and only if) I approve it.

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff I disapprove the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither

morally good nor bad for me, iff I neither approve nor disapprove the act or trait.

Consider these questions, putting on your SER hat:

When people have an ethical disagreement,

whose position is the correct position? Who is in error?

How are ethical disagreements different from matters of taste (for instance, food, art, music, favorite color, etc.)?

Can anyone ever be in error morally, on this view?

SER

(11)

and only if) I approve it. Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff I disapprove the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff I neither approve nor disapprove the act or trait.

Consider these questions, putting on your SER hat:

whose position is the correct position? Who is in error? No one.

How are ethical disagreements different from matters of taste (for instance, food, art, music, favorite color, etc.)? There is no difference.

Can anyone ever be in error morally, on this view? No. by definition.

SER

(12)

for me iff (if and only if) my culture approves it.

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff my culture disapproves the act or trait

An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff my culture neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait.

These logical consequence of SER might lead one to the second cell on the left, CER. How might Cultural Ethical Relativism answer these same questions?

whose position is the correct position? Who is in error?

How are ethical disagreements different from matters of taste (for instance, food, art, music, favorite color, etc.)?

Can anyone ever be in error morally, on this view?

SER

(13)

whose position is the correct position? Who is in error? A: Correct position is that held by the

culture. You are in error if you don’t hold that view.

How are ethical disagreements different from matters of taste (for instance, food, art, music, favorite color, etc.)? A: Within cultures there is widespread agreement on ethical matters, as for instance, curbs against murder. Not so, vis-à-vis matters of taste. Also, cultures don’t place high stakes on matters of taste.

Can anyone ever be in error morally, on this view? A: See above.

SER

CER

Corollaries:

(14)

So, on this view, we preserve the common notion we have that moral values are discoverable

objective matters of fact about which we can

disagree. Moral judgments, ethical propositions become things that can be either true or false. If moral propositions were simply akin to

expressions of matters of taste, like whether or not you think broccoli tastes good, then “murder is wrong” would be a proposition that would only be “true for” the person who uttered the

statement. Any universal claims would be false. CER apparently avoids this. At least within

cultures.

SER

CER

Corollaries:

(15)

Some questions for CER:

Can there be universal moral truths under CER? Does CER avoid the sorts of logical consequences that DCT brought?

Why would CER be a plausible view?

SER

CER

Corollaries:

(16)

Taking the latter first:

Why would CER be a plausible view? Cultural diversity is a matter of fact. Let’s look at two cases:

SER

CER

Corollaries:

(17)

SER

CER

The Persian

King, the Greeks

and the

Calatians: An

Ancient

Multi-Cultural Lesson:

(18)

(3.38) I will give this one proof among many from which it may be inferred that all men hold this belief about their customs. When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that they wouldn’t do it for any amount of money. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrible an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is king of all.

(19)

SER

CER

Corollaries:

(3.38) I will give this one proof among many from which it may be inferred that all men hold this belief about their customs. When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that they wouldn’t do it for any amount of money. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrible an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is king of all.

(20)

SER

CER

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff my culture disapproves the act or trait An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff my culture neither approves nor disapproves the act or trait.

The Cultural

Anthropologist,

and the Mountain

People: A Modern

Multi-Cultural

Lesson:

(21)

SER

CER

Corollaries:

The Ik

People

(22)

SER

CER

The Ik

People

Colin Turnbull

Turnbull was a cultural anthropologist. Cultural Anthropologists live amongst and study groups, much as other sorts of scientist study animal groups, to see how they adapt to their various environments. Because they want to extract accurate information, they go to great pains to convince the groups they live with to behave as they normally would.

Turnbull had heard of the Ik people, of Uganda. Displaced from their ancestral home by the Ugandan government, they were in the midst of a drastic change. Their original habitat was rich, and the group farmed, hunted and made a pretty good living for themselves. They were rather typical of groups fortunate enough to live in such circumstances.

Their new ‘home’ was very different. The soil was poor, and animal life scarce. Turnbull wanted to see how their cultural practices were changed by the change in habitat. Turnbull negotiated, convincing them to behave as if he were not there. He promised them he would in no way report them to any Ugandan governmental authority.

(23)

SER

CER

did begin to loosen up, and act as they probably did before Turnbull’s arrival. Their behavior was, to say the least, peculiar. Some examples: Like other village based groups, they gathered at dusk/night around a central fire, ate, socialized, told stories, and made plans for the

coming day. One evening, Turnbull watched as a toddler stumbled and bumbled his way toward the fire. He was evidently attracted by the swirling phosphorescence on the glowing embers of the now faded fire. The visuals no doubt were fascinating to him. Being naturally curious, and wanting to investigate at close hand, he reached toward an ember, not knowing it was hot. This was enough to affect his

balance, and he fell over, face-first into the embers. He cried in agony. Turnbull had to resist his first impulse, to run to the child’s aid. He was there to observe, not interfere. After all, he reasoned, the parents will no doubt quickly come to the boy’s rescue.

(24)

SER

CER

was very shocked by what he witnessed. The entire group, including the parents of the toddler, broke out in uproarious laughter.

Thunderstruck, Turnbull waited for what seemed to be 5 minutes for someone, anyone to retrieve the child from the fire. Finally, the

parents did.

After this episode, the Ik apparently opened up even further. Turnbull witnessed families fighting each other for food; children extracting food from the mouths of elderly; individuals forcing others to vomit so that they could eat the food; the group laughing at an elderly disabled woman who had fallen into a ravine; defecation on each other’s property, and other episodes of seriously deviant behavior. It was constant. He wondered how the culture could possibly survive.

(25)

SER

CER

definition of cultural ethical relativism in our matrix we can ask about the logical

consequences of a view that ties moral

properties to the conventions or attitudes of cultures: What must we say about the moral status of Ik practices, not only for the Ik but for those, like us, that do not live in their culture?

(26)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

And, relating these questions

back to Divine Command

theory:

Does CER carry with it the

same sort of counterintuitive

consequences as polytheistic or

monotheistic divine command

theory?

Just Suppose that you are a

member of Ik Culture

and

ours…

(27)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

This would put you in a

situation similar to the

polytheist’s position.

‘Polycultural’ or

‘multicultural’ Ethical

Relativism and

polytheistic DCT are

Logically similar:

(28)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

Cullture A Culture B Culture C Culture D Culture E Culture F X

Poly-Cultural Ethical Relativism

X

If you are a poly-cultural, then one of the following is true:

A. If your cultures clash, then an act can be morally right and wrong, at the same time, or maybe neutral

B. Or maybe the moral property of the act will depend on the strength of allegiance you have to cultures, or..

C. The dominant or largest culture will determine D. But, certainly, you do not have much of a

(29)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

Like polytheistic divine

command theory, Poly-Cultural

Ethical Relativism leaves open

the possibility that something

can be both right and wrong

for you at the same time, and

in the same circumstances. So

you are praised if you do,

damned if you do!

(30)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

Does MONO-Cultural Ethical

Relativism carry with it the same sort

of counterintuitive consequences?

After all, in order to extract the

logical weirdness I had to assume

poly-culturalism. The Ik were isolated

members of one culture. So, does

mono-culturalism save the day? No.

As a matter of fact it mirrors

monotheistic divine command

theory’s faults.

(31)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

An act or personality trait is morally bad for me iff my culture disapproves the act or trait An act or personality trait is neither morally good nor bad for me, iff my culture neither

approves nor disapproves the act or trait. _{Mono-Cultural Ethical}

Relativism

X

If you are a mono-cultural, then:

A. An act can change from being morally right, to being wrong, or morally neutral without having itself changed in essence, and

B. Your decision procedure is simple unless the culture harbors ambiguous attitudes.

C. But,there is no logical space left for an ethical reformer. By definition, such a person is

immoral.

X

(32)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

Paradoxically, CER is tempting only because, in

considering it, we tend to presuppose things

that show it is false! Invariably, in attempting

to defend CER, people will, in effect, refute it.

Because cultures adopt and adapt practices for 2 basic reasons, we are all able to understand them, and make judgments as to how successfully they have met challenges of the human condition. Our presupposition of these two basic reasons also tempts us to accept CER as a serious ethical theory The two “basic reasons?”

1. They wish to provide for human flourishing, and preserve certain values (some of which are apparently universal) toward that end.

2. Material, social, and political environments create differing sets of challenges for those fundamental values, and the attainment of human happiness or flourishing.

(33)

SER MDCT

CER PDCT

Corollaries:

For the same reason, people tend to think DCT is plausible. Because at some level, they believe God would never approve/disapprove of some actions or character traits, and he has good reasons for

approving others.

Because God(s) created us with distinct qualities and a

purpose in life, certain practices, acts or character traits tend to allow us to flourish (attain happiness in the deep sense of that word)

1. Because God is all good he wishes to provide for human flourishing and sees that some things are valuable to that end (hence are morally positive)

2. Material, social, and political environments create differing sets of challenges for those fundamental

values. So there will be some variance across cultures. However, there is room to compare practices with an eye to how effectively they support human flourishing. This allows for moral judgments.