phyllis young: PHI Module 3 Assignment
whieso
phi_107_module_3_overview.rtfModule 3 Overview
Egoism and Relativism; Pluralism and Pragmatism
Welcome to Module Three. Is it wrong to smoke marijuana? Is it unethical to get an abortion? Recently, several states and municipalities have passed ordinances and ballot initiatives legalizing the use of marijuana. Also, some states have severely restricted access to abortion, whereas others have not. Are these actions right or wrong and ethical or unethical depending on physical boundaries or jurisdiction rule? This module will explore egoism, moral relativism, pluralism, and pragmatism in the context of real-world issues.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
2B
discuss ‘moral sainthood’ and its role in ethics.
6B
describe pluralism and pragmatism as they relate to ethics.
6C
analyze the benefits and criticisms of cultural relativism as it relates to ethics.
7A
evaluate the different perspectives of egoism as it relates to ethics.
7B
discuss sociological and cultural relativism as they relate to ethics.
Module 3 Reading Assignment
Waller, B. N. (2011). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Chapters 2 and 6.
Supplemental Reading Assignments (Required):
Häyry, M. (2005). A defense of ethical relativism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14(1), 7-12.
Course Login Instructions
If you are a first time user:
Please register your Pearson Online Solutions Student Access Code. You can find your Student Access Code in the AAU Course Registration e-mail that came with your text.
If you are a returning user:
Please visit the Access Code Registration page to log in. You must log in every time you access this course. If you are not logged in, you will not be able to access the premium resources.
NOTE: Bookmarking pages in this site, especially the resources you access with the link above, is not recommended.
Please view the Online Presentation for Module 3 .
Egoism and Relativism; Pluralism and Pragmatism
Chapter 2 Lecture Notes: Egoism and Relativism
Egoism
Psychological egoism is the view that all of our behavior is selfish or self-interested as a matter of empirical psychological fact. Although several convincing examples can be given in support of selfish or self-interested behavior, psychological egoism, as a scientific theory, fails the test of falsifiability. If psychological egoism is a scientific account of human behavior, then one should able to state what would count as evidence against the position. But all acts that might count against the theory are immediately reinterpreted in terms of selfishness or self-interest. Thus, psychological egoists tend to espouse a belief and not an empirically testable claim. Additionally, the psychological egoist appears to conflate the notions of selfishness, self-interest, and satisfaction. Ethical egoism is the view that we ought to always act in a way that is self-interested. Unlike psychological egoism, an ethical egoist need not subscribe to any particular psychological theory. One could believe that human beings are not entirely self-interested, yet still hold that ethical egoism is an approach to morality we ought to adopt. Ethical egoism can be described from both an individual and universal perspective. Individual egoism holds that everyone ought to do what benefits them (i.e., the egoist). Individual egoism is in some respects a difficult position to refute since it is possible that there are simply those that have no concern for others. Although such a life may seem unsatisfying to many, that in and of itself does not count against the theory. On the other hand, universal egoism is a theory of extremely rugged individualism in which everyone ought to aim exclusively at his or her own benefit and should neither give, ask, nor receive help from others. This view rests on two mistakes. First, it assumes, all evidence to the contrary, that people are not social creatures by nature. Secondly, it rests upon the faulty assumption that laissez-faire capitalism is ultimately good for everyone. Here again the universal egoist seems to ignore the historical as well as contemporary shortcomings of such approaches. Relativism
Ethical relativism is the thesis that what is right is relative to each culture. Relativism is a meta-ethical position that denies any universal standard of right and wrong. Relativism may take both a sociological and ethical form. Sociological relativism is the well-supported scientific view that different cultures have different customs, standards, and moral codes. On the other hand, cultural relativism is the view that not only do differing ethical codes exist, but ethical judgments can only be made relative to a given culture. Ethical principles only have objective force within a particular culture. Critics of cultural relativism list a number of problems with the theory. First, there is the problem of defining cultures and cultural belonging. Each of us belongs to several different social groups, or cultures, simultaneously. For example, you may belong to the student culture, the American culture, and the military culture all at the same time. It would be hard, if not impossible, to narrow down only one culture to which you belong. Second is the problem of ethical reform. If ethics is relative to culture, then ethical progress is impossible. We could never say that we should stop performing a certain action, because we could never say that that action is wrong in the first place. Thirdly, there is the problem of the trivializing of our ethical concerns. On the other hand, even if one rejects cultural relativism, it does offer some important insights into our moral or ethical attitudes. Cultural relativism helps to remove our ethical provincialism. That fact that other cultures may not share our values does not always mean that those values are wrong. Cultural relativism also forces us to seriously consider our motives for wanting to intervene or reform other cultures. According to cultural relativism, “whatever is, is right.” Cultures develop in a manner such that they are the best they could be. The culture and its ethical code is the optimum fit for its circumstances. Ethical relativism denies universal, objective ethical truth. This leads to the belief that there are no good grounds for ethical claims, and therefore no basis for criticizing any existing cultural practice.
Chapter 6 Lecture Notes: Pluralism and Pragmatism
Value Pluralism
The majority of ethical theories considered so far have argued for one overriding moral principle or good that should direct all our ethical considerations. This belief in a unifying principle is referred to as ethical monism. In contrast to ethical monism is the value pluralism position, which is also referred to as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism. The value pluralist holds that there are multiple values, all of them legitimate and genuine. Although they may sometimes be in conflict, there is no objective way of placing those multiple values in rank order. It should be noted that value pluralism is not the same thing as political pluralism. Political pluralism is the view that citizens of the state should be free to pursue their own values, so long as they do not harm or interfere with other citizens. One may consistently hold a political pluralist position while still rejecting value pluralism. Value pluralism is not simply the view that we do not know which values ought to take precedence; it is that view that there is no supreme good. There are many goods, with no clear order among them. This naturally makes it more difficult to make ethical judgments. If there are fundamentally different values, then how can we tell when our value choices are correct? Do Ethical Obligations Always Come First?
Value pluralism holds that there are multiple values that cannot be measured by a single standard. Even if there were a unitary standard, this would not answer the question as to whether ethical values should always take precedence over other values. Although we would not want to reject all moral values or hold that moral values are not extremely important, we may want to ask whether following a strict moral life leads to the best life for humans. As the text notes, Susan Wolf has argued against this kind of moral saintliness. Always striving for the best possible moral act may lead to an impoverished life. On the other hand, Catherine Wilson holds that such a position may make us too comfortable with the status quo, particularly when it comes to our disproportionate consumption of the world’s resources. Pluralism and Pragmatism
Pragmatism is sometimes classified as a form of relativism, but is actually a different and distinctive view. Pragmatists have a more experimental orientation toward ethics. Although pragmatists maintain that there are ethical truths, they deny that such truths are fixed absolutes. For the pragmatist, what matters in ethics is a coherent workable system that guides us well and works effectively. Rather than trying to match our theories to “the world as it really and truly is, independently of us,” we must instead seek theories that work best in the world in which we live. Pragmatic ethics is an experimentalist approach that is analogous to the systems developed in the sciences to work best for those purposes.
Required Audio:
Media Index . Please listen to the Audio to Go (located under Course) listed below.
- Absolutism, Relativism, and Truth
NOTE: If you are having difficulty accessing the above material, please click on the PHI 107 Pearson Instructions .
Required Web Resource:
Please read the following excerpt: Rachels, J. (1999). The challenge of cultural relativism . The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 15-29). New York: McGraw-Hill. Consider what positive and negative aspects of the theory are being presented.
Required Presentations:
