IMT 550 Module 2

Lecture Fatal Flaws of Moral Relativism  There is no objective moral truth , since there are altering theories between every different culture o Moral absolutists: the complete opposite, saying that there are absolute truths Fatal Flaws of Moral Relativism 1. If moral relativism is true, then no one can ever be accused of doing anything wrong o Fault: you can still think something is wrong, even though there is no clear moral wrongness 2. In relativism, you have no basis to complain about the problem of evil o An often religious argument, often blaming moral relativism is our downfall, and often taught in schools  Ex. Jordan Peterson has case against moral relativism 3. Moral improvement implies an outside standard that you're getting closer o You can still have goals outside of a religion or cultural ideal, just non-scientific to justify  Some truths are not indicative of the entire argument, and is offered differed to emotionally, or with our religious upbringing o Kahn previously thought that ethics coincided with science, mimicking physics with absolute moral truths, but it is impossible to prove theoretically in the same way at this time  Law does not equal ethics, legally is cultural relativism 2.1 Module 2 Introduction  Comparing, contrasting and evaluating two ethical viewpoints: ethical relativism ad divine command theory  Overview of consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, and feminist ethical theory 2.2 Module 2 Opening Activity Ethical Principles of Global Cultures  Ethical principles in some cultures might not hold in other cultures, i.e. different work environments  Example cases, do you agree or disagree? o Baffin Island: Inuit Cases: a previously respected tradition of leaving the elderly to survive among Earth's elements to die, known as senicide, as they can no longer provide the tribe resources o Traditional Seal Clubbing: clubbing baby seals to death with wooden clubs 2.3 Introduction to Moral Reasoning  Regan discusses several ways to not answer moral questions o i.e. the difference between conflicting expressions of personal preference vs. moral judgment, for what is right and wrong  A problem with policy and ethics debates and political theory is that they are contentious Moral Judgments and Personal Preferences  Personal preference cannot solve ethical/policy problems, as personal preferences do not create conflict

How Should We Answer These Questions?  Another difference between personal preference and ethical claims is request for reasons -- it is appropriate to ask for reasons or arguments in ethical claims  Moral Judgments and Feelings falls prey to the same issues as personal preference  Thinking It Is So Does Not Make It So thinking something does not justify that claim  The Irrelevance of Statistics means that there is no strength of numbers in ethics, good arguments are needed instead  The Appeal to a Moral Authority o It is difficult to justify the belief in a God o It is difficult what is willed, commanded, or forbidden if it is unclear which prophets are false, and if a religious text could be trusted o It leads to the question if something is right because a God commanded it, or if God commanded it because it is right Ideal Moral Judgment  Conceptual Clarity: fully understanding the debated concept, for example, if abortion is a subset of euthanasia since it is unclear if the fetus is considered a person  Empirical Information: there are assumptions made about what is more likely, but actual facts can bring about more information on the questions  Rationality: recognizing the difference and connection between different ideas o Uses logic to understand if some statements are true, other statements must be false  Impartiality: not favoring something or someone above others, i.e. favoring one's own children versus another's o Free from bigotry, prejudice, and favoritism  Reflective Endorsement: unclouded by emotion, uncharged circumstances  Correct Moral Principles: guide those who have varying alternative ideas, not just following the other concepts o Further on this when we discuss consequentialism and deontology Conclusion  Next: ethical theories, ethical claims, and policy positions Reading: Introduction to Moral Reasoning (Regan) Some Ways Not to Answer Moral Questions Moral Judgments and Person Preferences  Moral disagreements are not the same as personal preference disagreements , as personal preference does not disagree with another person's thoughts o Personal: It's possible for both to be true at the same time  Argumentative support is not needed, as no judgment has been made o Moral: if one is true, the other is false  Support is requested, as a judgement has been made (1) o An example: personally disliking the idea of abortion versus stating that abortion is wrong (2) o Some philosophers deny a difference (1) Moral Judgments and Feelings  While stating that abortion is wrong implies a feeling of negativity toward the concept, it does not require backing of factual support, similar to person preferences (2)

 An example of a common argument for Ethical Relativism: o P1. Diversity Thesis: Moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society, so there are no universal moral standards held by all societies (Cultural Relativism). o P2. Dependency Thesis: Whether or not it is right for individuals to act in a certain way depends on (or is relative to) the society to which they belong. o C1. Therefore, there are no absolute or objective moral standards that apply to all people everywhere.  Argues that different societies have different moral codes, meaning different standards of right and wrong, as well as stating that each moral principle is just as correct as any other Subjectivism, Relativism, and Tolerance  If you relativize ethics down to individuals, it becomes useless since criticism/judgment of others is near impossible o i.e. if a murderer was following their own idea of correct moral principle, then they would be correct o This idea of ethical relativism is typically rejected, but the same issues follow other forms of it The Putative (Assumed) Connection Between Ethical Relativism and Tolerance  Why is naïve ethical relativism popular? A perceived connection between relativism and tolerance  Subjectivism (making ethics relative to individuals) or groups/societies would justify intolerance if adopted as a principle, and therefore cannot justify moral tolerance that holds for everyone  It cannot provide a case for intolerance because a society without an aversion to intolerance towards others could not claim that anything is wrong with intolerance Patrick Devlin vs. John Stuart Mill  Patrick Devlin (ethical relativist) argued that England's norms banned prostitution/homosexuality as unnatural, and that these people should be imprisoned/drugged to curb behavior o For intolerance  John Stuart Mill (non-relativist/objectivist) argued that liberty/moral toleration were objective moral principles which held across time, culture, and places o For tolerance Moral Evaluation of an Action  There is a difference between 1. Moral evaluation of an action and interference with that action  An action can be morally wrong, while it's also wrong to interfere with that action  It might be wrong to publicly condemn an action that's wrong to do 2. Moral evaluation of an action and the agent who performs it  Good people can do bad things due to false beliefs, not understanding consequences of actions, or lack abstraction to reflect on their current practices  They could be incorrect to judge as morally deficient even if their actions are morally wrong  John Stuart Mills could say that one should be tolerant of other cultures/places because it might be wrong to interfere with their actions/policies 1. We should also be wary of blaming/praising individuals from other cultures Video: Problems with Ethical Relativism and Cultural Relativism Problems for the Diversity Thesis  Ethical Relativism includes Cultural Relativism - different cultures have variety across their moral codes or principles

o Issue: there are many largely shared beliefs (but they could differ in implementation)  Difference of implementation: Alaskan citizens honor parents by letting them die of exposure, while Canada may honor parents by giving them to an old folks home Problems with Dependency Thesis  Different groups have different beliefs about the same subject, but we would never conclude they're equally correct o Ethics is somehow the only science where we state that there could be lots of equally correct different views o Request for an argument objection: questions the justifications of a belief system--the lack of a good argument destroys this argument  i.e. being raised on a religion is not a good enough reason to justify that belief  Simply saying that a group picked those morals, "it's tradition", or that they've always lived that way does not justify a group's cultural practices  Ethical Relativism leads to absurd conclusions i.e. Nazis would be justified as an entire cultural belief Martha Nussbaum  Against ethical relativism: it's a justification and protection of sexism and oppression Problems with Ethical and Cultural Relativism  Ethical Relativism cannot explain "moral progress," i.e. hundreds of years ago, we had more racism/oppression which ethical relativism would say was equally moral  It is unclear how groups are defined, i.e. what is the scope? Are we looking at subgroups within those? 2.6 Religious Moralism and Divine Command Theory  Two parts: o Equivalency thesis: all moral claims are with equivalent with what God wills, claims or commands  Things are only good if God approves, or wrong if God disapproves o Dependency Thesis: things are right according to certain cultures, morality is dependent on God