PHILLY 1

Week 2, Reading Section 2.1: Introduction

I. Introduction

For many centuries, since the turn of the Second Millennium, Ethics and Moral Philosophy had been dominated by the perspectives of Ancient Greek Thought, such as Plato and Aristotle, as those theorists’ work was imported into Western Christianity, first by Augustine, who brought Platonic ideas into Western theological discourse in the Fifth Century CE, and then by Thomas Aquinas, who brought Aristotelian systematic approaches into Western Intellectual thought in the Thirteenth Century CE.

Coincidentally with the period from the Sixteenth to the Mid-Twentieth Centuries European powers colonized and imperialised much of the rest of the World. The British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese Empires fell apart, in the wake of the Second World War, and those areas held by the Europeans gained their independence over the years from 1947 to 1975. 

As a result of Post-Colonialism, the newly independent countries, cultures, and lands have sought to reconnect with their pre-European, cultural heritages. Those intellectual efforts have brought re-examinations of the prevailing Ethical, Moral, and Legal systems in those places. Also as a result of Post-Colonial Philosophical efforts, these cultures have sought to assert their own Ethical and Moral values and have argued for equality of their views and systems, with those of their former, European colonizers’ systems.

Intellectually, since the 1970s and ‘80s, within Western Ethics and Moral Philosophy, new schools of thought have emerged, in recognition of the developments in what have been termed the Third and Fourth Worlds; a/k/a the countries once politically/physically colonized by Europeans and North Americans. These schools of Thought are Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism. As we shall see below, these are related, though conceptually distinct.

Week 2, Reading Section 2.2: Theories of the Week

II. Theories of the Week

A. Cultural Relativism, aka Relativism

Cultural Relativism has several, basic tenets. First, all cultures’ moral/ethical systems are equal, in overall claims to respect, and no culture’s ethical/moral system is better, or worse, than any other. Thus, it is up to each culture, to determine what are its moral and ethical rules. Second, no culture may impose its rules or systems on another culture.

Please note that these do not foreclose most, if not all, cultures from sharing certain, fundamental ethical positions, such as it is wrong to murder a fellow human being. These basic tenets indicate that one culture may not impose values on another, even when its members believe that values are Universal, or ought to be. 

Resource:  Relativism . Read only the introductory paragraphs. 

 As a side note, please keep in mind the difference between Empirical and Normative. “Empirical” statements are those that state facts, or can be characterized as “the way things are”; the “is,” if you will. Normative statements are those that indicate what rules, ethics, or morals, should apply in a situation; the “ought,” so to speak.

Resource:  Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism   [PDF]

B. Subjectivism, and Ethical Egoism

In this section, you will see the foundations of Subjectivism and of Ethical Egoism. Some Ethicists consider them to be the same thing. Others recognize differences between the two. You decide for yourself.

In one sense, you may consider Subjectivism to be the individual version of Cultural Relativism. Subjectivism holds that: (1)  no human person’s moral system is better than any other human person’s moral values; (2) each human person is free to choose the moral values and ethics, in which she/he believes; (3) no individual, human being, acting in a personal capacity, may impose his/her moral value systems on another human being. These are the similarities Subjectivism has with Cultural Relativism.

Resource:  Ethical Subjectivism

Here are a few dissimilarities. First, a human person, being free to choose her/his moral views, the culture in which that person lives may not impose its morals upon her/him. Second, only the most basic laws may apply to that person. In effect, the majorities in a culture may not impose their moral views on unwilling member of that culture.

On to Egoism, Ethical or Otherwise. The basic version of  Egoism holds that a person may pursue whatever is in his/her own best interests and that it is up to that person to determine what those interests are. If an action advances the person’s interest, then the action is moral.  The person may take others’ interests or needs into account, but the person does not have to do so. As you can see, this is a Consequentialist approach.

Resource:  Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism  [PDF]

In response to criticisms that Egoism was nothing more than “jungle ethics,” or “anything-goes,” many ethicists, espousing Egoism, refined their approaches. They argued that Ethical Egoism did recognize certain restraints in the choices a person could make. John Stuart Mill’s position in On Liberty typifies this approach: a person may do whatever advances his/her interests,  so long as that action does not interfere with any others’ pursuit of their interests.  Please note that Utilitarianism is a form of Ethical Egoism, as we shall see in Week 4.

During this week’s Discussion you will visit these and related issues and questions.

Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism

Debra Rosenthal, Ph.D.

Let's start with two common ideas: that morality is whatever is defined as "right" by society, and that morality is whatever feels "right" to each individual. Cultural Relativism: We've Always Done It This Way! Many people feel that morality is nothing more than social convention, a matter of conforming to social expectations. The idea that "society" defines right and wrong, and there's nothing more to it, is the first challenge to moral philosophy. This view is called cultural relativism. (Sometimes you'll see it called "moral relativism," but "cultural relativism" is a more precise title.) Cultural relativism is the idea that morality cannot be based on "objective" moral judgments because everyone judges good and bad, right and wrong, from within the standpoint of the standards, values, and norms of his or her own culture. Social scientists are encouraged to be relativists when they deal with other cultures, because it prevents them from automatically judging those other cultures as inferior. It's an open-minded way of looking at societies that may seem appealing. Cultural relativism seems to advocate cultural tolerance, and many cultures (including many Americans) see tolerance as a virtue. Although curiosity and open-mindedness is probably a good idea for social scientists and travelers, cultural relativism raises a serious question for moral philosophy. As a "moral theory," however, cultural relativism suffers from logic problems. Different cultures may have different moral codes, but this does not imply that morality is nothing more than what a society says. Cultural relativism also carries some logical consequences that may not be acceptable—such as the implication that no society can ever be "wrong" in its practices—no matter how horrible. That's the Way I Like It! (And You Can Have It Your Way, Too) Subjectivism is the idea that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal preference. I like chocolate, you like vanilla, and neither of us can claim that our favorite flavor is really, truly, objectively "best." We decide based on our feelings, rather than the truth about the things themselves. There are two logically distinct forms of subjectivism: • Simple subjectivism focuses on the idea that saying "Chocolate is best" really means "I like chocolate best," and this is a report of an internal state which cannot be denied. • Emotivism is a different interpretation, developed when philosophers noticed that some things we say are actually actions in themselves. For example, when you say "I do" at the altar in a marriage ceremony, or "I'm sorry," or "That's an order!" —all of these are examples of "speech acts." The emotivist interpretation of saying "Chocolate is best" is that I'm advocating chocolate. Whether simple subjectivist or emotivists, subjectivists believe that there is no objective truth in morality. Subjectivism treats all moral choices as equal, no matter how misguided they may seem. It is a "to each his own" position. It assumes that there can be no objective way of judging moral truth. So if moral truth can't be judged objectively, subjectivists say, then moral truth doesn't really exist— it's simply a subjective preference, chocolate vs. vanilla.