Ethical Relativism PDF

Ethical Relativism 1. Moral skepticism 2. What is ethical relativism? 3. Four criticisms of ethical relativism 1. Moral skepticism  A moral sentence “Wanton cruelty, such as that involved in the torture of children, is wrong” – Question: How should we understand this...

Ethical Relativism 1. Moral skepticism 2. What is ethical relativism? 3. Four criticisms of ethical relativism 1. Moral skepticism  A moral sentence “Wanton cruelty, such as that involved in the torture of children, is wrong” – Question: How should we understand this sentence?  The skeptical meaning of moral sentences Expressive: Gives vent to emotions. Example: “Ugh!” Imperatival: Used to command. Example: “Shut the door!”  According to the skeptic, our sentence… Does not mean there is something in the world, torture, that is objectively bad – I.e., the sentence is not either true or false  So, it can only mean… “Torture! Ugh! It’s gross!” (the expressive meaning) “I hate torture. You should too!” (the imperatival meaning) – Key: In both cases, the sentence is neither true nor false, but it is not nonsensical because it has “emotive meaning”  Key point Ethical relativism is often mistaken for (some form of) skepticism, but the two ideas are importantly distinct  2. What is ethical relativism? Definition: The moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies across societies and there are thus no absolute moral standards binding on all people at all times. Recognizing this, we should be tolerant of moral differences across societies Why this is not moral skepticism Moral sentences can be true or false. They are true if they describe how a particular group thinks about a particular issue. They are false if they mis-describe this Ethical relativism: the argument Premise 1: Diversity Thesis Premise 2: Dependency Thesis Premise 3: No Transcultural Codes Conclusion: Tolerance Thesis  Premise 1: the diversity thesis A descriptive claim to the effect that there are numerous cultures in the world, each of which has a distinct moral code  Premise 2: dependency thesis A culture’s moral code emerges out of the particular values and social arrangements of that culture itself Premise 3: no transcultural codes There are no moral principles binding on all persons, regardless of the culture they inhabit. This is because no single code transcends any particular culture  Conclusion: the tolerance thesis It follows from premises 1-3 that we must not stand in judgement of the moral codes or practices of other cultures. We must be tolerant of moral difference  3. Four Criticisms of Ethical Relativism A. Deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ – From claims only about the way the world is, nothing follows about the way it should be  Example: “We eat a lot of meat” Question: What follows logically from this sentence? (a) “We ought not to do this” (b) “We ought to keep on doing this” (c) Neither (a) nor (b) Answer: (c). Nothing normative follows logically from the purely descriptive claim about our diet  Introduce a normative premise (a) We eat a lot of meat (b) Doing so is morally objectionable (c) Therefore we should eat less meat, or none at all  4 criticisms (cont.) B. Overstating diversity Examples: – Every society makes a distinction between justified and unjustified killing. – Every society places some restrictions on sexual activities. Most place a taboo on incest, e.g. – Every society considers lying wrong under specially defined circumstances  4 criticisms (cont.) C. Tolerance thesis looks like a transcultural moral principle, contrary to premise 3 of the argument  4 criticisms (cont.) D. No possibility of rational criticism What can we say to the Hitlers of the world if ethical relativism is true? We cannot say that they are evil or wrong. Maybe all we can say is “Hitler, BOO!” Is that enough? Two examples