introduction to ethics

VarietiesofRelativism.ppt

Morality Relativism & the Concerns it Raises

“I want to give moral relativism the good spanking it deserves.”

Peter Kreef philosophy professor, Boston College

Does “relativism” need a spanking?

2005 new Pope Benedict warned of the “onslaught of moral relativism”
He “has characterized it as the major evil. Some observers believe he is taking a stance in the tense cultural wars in the United States.” (NPR radio, 2005)
Mormons agree: “moral relativism/militant atheism”
Culture wars?

Defining the Terms: Relativism

Moral relativism: morality is purely cultural
Moral differences & disagreements are irreconcilable
For example, Inuit Eskimos practice infanticide: one woman had borne 20 children but killed 10 at birth.
Eskimos also practice euthanasia: when the elderly become too feeble to travel, they’re left to freeze.
Hence, there’s no one universal moral truth for all times, places, peoples and cultures
The only possible good is toleration & mutual respect of pluralistic values

James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” (Fifty Readings, 2nd Ed.), 397.

Defining the Terms: Absolutism

Moral absolutism: there are clear moral truths to govern all ethical issues regardless of situation.
Immoral to accept the justifiability of two conflicting positions on any given ethical issue
For example: with this position, it would be unacceptable for Bush (pro-life) to say Eskimo infanticide practices are understandable and permissible among Eskimos
Or if polygamy or underage marriage is wrong, it is wrong everywhere and at all times.
But what is “underage marriage”?

Moral Absolutism and Human Knowledge

Name some fields of human knowledge where we deal with facts and have made great progress.
Scientific theory must deal with hard data
No science that claims absolute knowledge;
Fallibility is the hallmark of science
But fallibility does not mean all theories are equal.
Why should ethics be any different?
If moral truths are not absolute, why should that prove that all moral values are equal?
We can measure progress in science but what about ethics?

Illogic of Extreme Moral Relativism

In extreme relativism, no one can rightly pass judgment on others’ values/social practices
Consider Afghan Taliban Culture & Values:
Ban on women's work outside the home
Ban on women's presence in radio or television
Ban on women at schools or universities
Ethic of absolute relativism is self-contradictory:
If I pass judgment on others for passing any judgment, am I not passing judgment on others?

Normative relativism: while cultural values clearly differ, nevertheless there are some general purposes shared by all moral codes.
A socially accepted way of regulating conflicts of interests in society to preserve that people and culture with rules shaped by situations to that end.
A socially accepted way of regulating conflicts of interests within an individual that can’t be equally satisfied at the same time (example: crime victim’s desire for vengeance vs. desire for justice)
Morality is for social preservation & concern for others

Stable but Situationally Sensitive

To meet conflicts of interests in a changing world, moral codes need two things:
reliable stability and relative adaptability
If the rules are constantly changing, they lose credibility
When we refuse to change rules that no longer serve the social good, the rules also lose credibility
Tao Te Ching: “We’re born soft & supple; the dead are immobile & hard. The stiff and inflexible then are disciples of death.”

On Moral Judgment

Passing Judgment vs. Acting on Judgment:
Normative relativism can and does pass judgment on others with different values (terrorism is wrong whether in America, Iraq, India, or China).
But what we’re entitled to DO about those judgments is another matter.
Efforts to make all things right can make more things worse.

Acting in Judgment

There is no general rule that tells us what to do when another culture is contradicting the value of their own social good.
Example: suppose a country is destroying its own environment & endangering its people’s own welfare
It’s justifiable to condemn their environmental destructiveness,
but the moral right to condemn does not indicate what action, if any, should be taken against that particular evil.

James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” (Fifty Readings, 2nd Ed.), 397.