paper
liuchang
EthicsWeek2-RelativismSubjectivismandReligiousEthics2.pptxEthics in computer games and cinema: Week two
Relativism, Subjectivism, and religious ethics
1
Learning objectives
Understand the meaning behind cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism.
Understand how to distinguish between different religious normative moral frameworks.
Cultural relativism
Cultural Relativists believe that there is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to morality.
In other words, moral truth is really only a matter of subjectivity which varies from culture to culture.
For example, one culture, the Callatians, believe it makes sense to eat dead relatives. However, other cultures, such as the Greeks (or our own culture in the United States in 2020) will disagree with that.
Different cultures have different beliefs (different countries or time periods present all kinds of different ways of viewing morality). It is naïve to think otherwise. This is what cultural relativism is all about.
3
The five claims of cultural relativism
FIRST CLAIM: Different societies have different moral codes.
SECOND CLAIM: The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
THIRD CLAIM: There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
FOURTH CLAIM: The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
FIFTH CLAIM: It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
The three consequences of being a cultural relativist
First Consequence: We can no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
In other words, as cultural relativists, we aren’t allowed to say another culture is bad, just because it’s different from our own. However, we can probably think of many different cultures that are not only different from our own, but also morally wrong (such as the Nazi culture of WWII).
Second Consequence: We can no longer criticize the code of our own society.
What if our society needs improvement? According to cultural relativism, we aren’t allowed to say anything critical about the way our government is run, even when it seems flawed. As cultural relativists, we must accept what our government does and never criticize it, no matter what.
Third Consequence: The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
According to cultural relativism, the only way to improve society is to “make it better match its own ideals” (22). In other words, the only thing we can do to make our culture better is determine what it’s trying to do and then demand it achieve that potential as much as possible.
Cultural relativism Class discussion question
Discussion Question: Contrary to cultural relativism, do you believe our current culture is in fact special, rather than just being one of many cultures? Why or why not? Why would our culture be more special than others? Or is it foolish to say that?
The difference between a value and a belief
Just because societies differ in beliefs does not mean they differ in values.
Beliefs refer to the way we execute our society’s rules (based on a popular societal opinion), whereas values refer to the reason why we carry out our beliefs.
To help us understand this, consider the following example…
One group of people believes we shouldn’t eat cows (even though doing so could help us survive). Another group says we should, as this is a source of food.
Here, both of these groups share very different beliefs. However, the reason why the first culture doesn’t want to eat cows is because they believe the souls of previously existing humans may live within certain animals.
In a case like this, while both societies have different BELIEFS, they also have the same VALUES, that it is wrong to eat a human being.
7
Examples of values all cultures share
We will see if each of these values are truly universal among all cultures…
Truth Telling – Societies need communication in order to function. Therefore, we need to be able to tell the truth as much as possible.
Law against Murder – In order for a society to function, there needs to be a law against murder. Sometimes, societies will allow certain people to die (such as people who break the law), but it makes no sense to allow any societal member to die at anytime without any sort of legal consequence.
If these values are in fact universal/objectively truthful, it would mean there can be something objectively known, contrary to what Cultural Relativists believe about ethics.
Discussion Question: Do you believe there could be a society out there that does not share one of these values? According to the text, it makes sense to suggest that these are both universal values shared by all cultures. Is Rachels right about that?
8
Final thoughts on cultural relativism
There are major upsides and downsides to cultural relativism.
One downside is that cultural relativism may be wrong when it says there’s no such thing as objective moral truths. Perhaps, objective moral truths can in fact be found in the values that all cultures share.
An upside is that the beliefs that differ in cultures are not always bad. Just because another culture does something our culture thinks is absurd doesn’t mean it’s automatically morally bad (such as the Callatians. What they do might seem weird. However, that does not equate to being morally wrong). Cultural Relativism helps make us aware of these things and not condemn them just for being different.
Therefore, while cultural relativism may seem flawed, it does encourage us to keep an open mind about other cultures and think more critically about other societies, beyond our own, and for this reason, we should have at least some appreciation for it.
9
Ethical Subjectivism
According to our book, Ethical Subjectivism is the school of thought that says “People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned there are no ”facts” and no one is “right.” People just feel differently about things, and that’s all there is to it” (34).
Keep in mind, this ONLY applies to morality. There certainly are objective facts in science or mathematics. It’s just “where morality is concerned” that there are no objective, universal facts.
This is similar to cultural relativism in the sense that both schools of thought believe ethics is really only a matter of opinion, and that there can be no objective basis for morality.
Ethical Subjectivism (cont.)
The difference is that cultural relativism refers to cultures having different beliefs, while Ethical Subjectivism can refer not only to cultures/societies, but also to any individual. Everyone is entitled to some opinion, so when it comes to morality, no one is right and everyone is right, because it’s always just a matter of opinion.
There are many different forms of ethical subjectivism (different interpretations of how it should be properly viewed), but the one thing all interpretations will agree on is that ethical subjectivism states that everything moral is just a matter of opinion, not objective, universal fact.
End of first half
12
The influence of religion
Religion is extremely influential
Many people believe in God and many religions are still incredibly significant to a large amount of people.
Regarding the subject of Ethics, religious authorities are often members of hospital ethics committees, decide on movie ratings, and are generally viewed as expert authorities on morality.
13
Religion provides moral value
One might argue that without religion, we find ourselves in a world in which we have no purpose. In other words, it seems things are without meaning.
Religion therefore provides us with meaning, and as a result we find we have moral value.
“When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and purpose” (51).
Without value and without purpose, we can make the argument that nothing matters and therefore, who cares about morality? If we’re just here randomly and without a destiny to fulfill, then why care at all about how we live our lives?
Furthermore, we can explore the quote from Bertrand Russell mentioned on page 52.
Discussion Question
Religion clearly has a lot of influence over various aspects of society. Do you believe it’s right for religious authorities to have as much power as they do? For instance, do you think it’s fair for the clergy to decide movie ratings? If not, then who should be allowed to make these kinds of decisions?
15
First religious school of thought: Divine command theory
In normative ethics, the school of thought known as the Divine Command Theory tells us what’s right is whatever God says is right and what’s wrong is whatever God says is wrong. This can apply to any religion.
Here, we’re not forced against our will to obey God’s commands. We are able to go against them if we so choose. However, we must use our free will to do as God commands if we want to be good moral agents.
This is a very clear and simple way of viewing morality and one that many religious people find attractive when deciding on how they should live their lives.
First religious school of thought: Divine command theory (cont.)
Moreover, DCT also tries to fix the issue of ethical subjectivism by letting us know there is a single, objective way of viewing ethics. As long as we do what God wants us to do, we are living our lives in the right way. It’s as simple as that.
Typically, people will interpret God’s commands based on religious texts (such as the Bible). This should make a lot of sense, since religious texts are full of countless moral lessons.
However, Divine Command Theory is not without its problems…
Negative Consequences of divine command theory
Consequence #1: The D.C.T. is too mysterious.
In other words, we don’t know how God decided what’s good and what’s bad. He just did. All God has to do is command we do something, and then morally we have to do it, which seems odd.
Consequence #2: The D.C.T. makes God’s commands seem arbitrary
In other words, there’s no reason behind why we should follow God’s commands. The closest thing we have to a reason why is because God said so, and that’s it.
Consequence #3: D.C.T. provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.
In other words, as divine command theorists, the only reason why we know something is wrong is because God said so. Therefore, according to this logic, if there were no God, then child abuse wouldn’t be wrong.
Obviously, the above statement is absurd.
18
Additional notes on divine command theory
The main issue here is that the divine command theory is so simple that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions, which therefore makes the theory seem extremely problematic.
This is not to say that religion is not the path to morality. We are simply saying that the D.C.T. might not be the best way to view religious ethics.
It should also be noted that the Divine Command Theory obviously won’t work at all from an atheist perspective, but as we are now realizing, it seems as though it may be troubling from a religious standpoint as well.
However, we can try to fix Divine Command Theory by viewing it in a slightly different way. What follows is a possible solution to this problem…
19
A Question about divine command theory
Does God’s Will precede and determine morality?
OR
Does morality precede and determine God’s Will?
20
Second religious school of thought: Natural Law Theory
In normative ethics, the school of thought known as the theory of Natural Law tells us that human nature is the same thing as being morally right. In other words, as long as we do what feels natural, we are doing the right thing.
From a religious point of view, God created all of us and therefore the way we naturally are (in accordance with God’s plan) is the way we need to be. Therefore, if you feel a natural need to do something, then that thing must be apart of God’s plan, and therefore according to Natural Law Theory, it will most likely be considered morally right.
(Image of St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosopher who developed the Theory of Natural Law)
21
Second religious school of thought: Natural Law Theory (cont.)
To put it another way, God is great and he made you to be great as well. However, there are ways for us to stop being great and it’s up to us to discover how not to go against this plan.
Still, the idea of human nature might seem somewhat vague. However, Natural Law Theorists view human nature in a number of different ways, as we shall soon see…
(Image of St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosopher who developed the Theory of Natural Law)
22
Three main parts of natural law theory
We can understand how to view human nature (from the perspective of Natural Law Theory) in three main ways…
(1) Ancient Greek philosophers discovered that everything has some purpose to it. This was first developed by Aristotle. Later, religious philosophers determined that not only is it true that everything has a purpose, but also that purpose was given by God. Therefore, from a moral perspective, fulfilling that purpose is what we must do if we want to be good moral agents.
23
Three main parts of natural law theory
(2) Human nature is not the same as the way things are. For Natural Law theorists, human nature is what we “ought” to be. As mentioned earlier, human beings have a distinct purpose and if that purpose is not fulfilled, then human nature is not being realized (for example: a Natural Law theorist may view a sociopath or serial killer as someone who is behaving unnaturally).
24
Three main parts of natural law theory
(3) Probably the most important part of Natural Law Theory is that as human beings, we have been given the ability to reason. This is the most essential part of human nature, as it distinguishes our species from others. Therefore, whatever is supported by the best, most reasonable argument, is the same as what’s morally right from a N.L.T. perspective.
25
Problems with natural law theory
What’s natural isn’t always what’s good.
EXAMPLES: Natural Selfishness, Naturally Occurring Diseases, Natural Disasters (Floods, Hurricanes, etc.)
N.L.T. seems to conflict with scientific laws.
When we look at science, we get a world of indifference. Scientific principles do not hint at any ultimate purpose, human destiny, or existence of God. Science only has scientific facts to offer and nothing more. Therefore, the world we know today, based on our knowledge of science, seems to go against many parts of Natural Law Theory. Perhaps, there is no natural God-given purpose for human beings.
26
Next Time: The Social Contract Theory and ethical egoism
Readings…
Rachels ch. 5 and 6
Hobbes PDF (on D2L)
Branden PDF (on D2L)
27
