Moral Relativism – lecture notes | Lecture notes Ethics

Ethics (Lecture 2: Relativism) ————————————————————————————

Relativism

-What does relativism amount to?

Moral code of a certain society—>a set of shared beliefs—>if something is right (and something

wrong)—> if the moral code of a certain society says that a certain action is right, then that action

is right, at least within that society. (Rachels, 2010: p16) !

Moral codes of societies determine what is right or wrong within those societies. !

Relativism is not a principle of tolerance—>it just regards what things can be right and what

things can be wrong.!

Tolleranza non è logically a consequent of relativism (sono compatibili, ma il primo non è

logicamente conseguente al secondo né viceversa). Sono logicamente separati e separabili, puoi

pensare che qualcosa sia giusto o sbagliato in altre società indipendentemente dal fatto che tu sia

tollerante o meno: e puoi finire per concludere che altre persone possano sbagliare (“could be

wrong”).!

-Are there any good arguments for relativism?

Per rendere valido l’argomento dobbiamo aggiungere premesse che non sono plausibili tanto

quanto l’unica che è presente (con la quale però l’argomento è invalido) o modificare quell’unica

premessa, ma con la stessa conclusione (la/le premessa/e sarà non molto plausibile, almeno per

alcuni, o controversa/e).!

Validity—>we introduce a second premise: it is now valid. !

Soundness—>!

-Are there any serious problems for relativism?

●Remember what I said about the role of judgement last time: we must see whether the

consequences of a view are acceptable.

Perfect legitimate way of testing the idea: are there any consequences which we might find

unacceptable? There are three such consequences:!

1) We could no longer (justifiably) say that the customs of other societies are

morally inferior to our own —> Does this follow from the truth of relativism?

○If relativism is true, it makes rational sense to make moral judgements on the basis of our

own moral beliefs. If, according to these moral beliefs, another society’s morality is wrong,

then why not form that judgment?

2) We could no longer (justifiably) criticise the code of our own society —> Does this

follow from the truth of relativism?

3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt —> Does this follow from the truth of

relativism?

○Moral progress might be a process of coming to a more coherent set of moral beliefs –

that is genuine progress because coherence is objectively good, and more of it is

objectively better;

○But having more coherent beliefs might not be morally better – it might be just

rationally better;

○So this account of moral progress does not undermine moral relativism: a moral relativist

does not have to be a relativist about rationality as well.

○Think of how (successful) moral progressives tend to argue...

○That rather depends upon what we say about the next supposed consequence…

Partial preview of the text

Download Moral Relativism – lecture notes and more Lecture notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Ethics (Lecture 2: Relativism) ———————————————————————————— Relativism

- What does relativism amount to?

Moral code of a certain society—>a set of shared beliefs—>if something is right (and something wrong)—> if the moral code of a certain society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. (Rachels, 2010: p16) Moral codes of societies determine what is right or wrong within those societies. Relativism is not a principle of tolerance —>it just regards what things can be right and what things can be wrong. Tolleranza non è logically a consequent of relativism (sono compatibili, ma il primo non è logicamente conseguente al secondo né viceversa). Sono logicamente separati e separabili, puoi pensare che qualcosa sia giusto o sbagliato in altre società indipendentemente dal fatto che tu sia tollerante o meno: e puoi finire per concludere che altre persone possano sbagliare (“could be wrong”).

- Are there any good arguments for relativism?

Per rendere valido l’argomento dobbiamo aggiungere premesse che non sono plausibili tanto quanto l’unica che è presente (con la quale però l’argomento è invalido) o modificare quell’unica premessa, ma con la stessa conclusione (la/le premessa/e sarà non molto plausibile, almeno per alcuni, o controversa/e). Validity —>we introduce a second premise: it is now valid. Soundness —>

- Are there any serious problems for relativism?

● Remember what I said about the role of judgement last time: we must see whether the consequences of a view are acceptable. Perfect legitimate way of testing the idea: are there any consequences which we might find unacceptable? There are three such consequences : 1) We could no longer (justifiably) say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own —> Does this follow from the truth of relativism? ○ If relativism is true, it makes rational sense to make moral judgements on the basis of our own moral beliefs. If, according to these moral beliefs, another society’s morality is wrong, then why not form that judgment? 2) We could no longer (justifiably) criticise the code of our own society —> Does this follow from the truth of relativism? 3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt —> Does this follow from the truth of relativism? ○ (^) Moral progress might be a process of coming to a more coherent set of moral beliefs – that is genuine progress because coherence is objectively good , and more of it is objectively better ; ○ But having more coherent beliefs might not be morally better – it might be just rationally better; ○ So this account of moral progress does not undermine moral relativism: a moral relativist does not have to be a relativist about rationality as well. ○ (^) Think of how (successful) moral progressives tend to argue... ○ That rather depends upon what we say about the next supposed consequence…

The challenge of cultural relativism 2. Different cultures have different moral codes (Herodotus, “History”—>Greeks-Callatians and burning-eating dead bodies; Eskimos). 2.

- According to someone “the idea of universal truth in ethics is a myth. To say that a custom is

“correct” or “incorrect” would imply that we can judge that custom by some independent standard of right and wrong. But no such standard exists; every standard is culture-bound”.

- Cultural Relativism : “challenges our belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. It

says, in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more”. —>”Different societies have different moral codes; if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society; there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times; it is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them”.

- Relationship between tolerance and cultural relativism : the former does not necessarily

follow from the latter, in the sense that the second proposition and the fifth proposition appear to be inconsistent with each other: the moral code (norms) of a society can favor intolerance. Hence, the two concepts can stay together but the former does not necessarily and logically follow from the latter. Nor does a principle of tolerance require relativism to be true: it is perfectly coherent to think that we ought to tolerate the views and practices of those who are wrong about morality. 2. The “Cultural Differences Argument”: using facts about cultures and ending up drawing a conclusion about morality: (1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from a culture to culture. Is the argument valid? No (the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, in the sense that, provided the premise is true, the conclusion might also be false)—>Is this argument sound? No. (example of the Earth: is it flat or spherical? Is there an objective truth at the basis? Today’s there can be people that might still believe that the Earth is flat, and thus we cannot say that there is not an objective truth just because people disagree—>there can be an objective truth and it might be the case that someone does not know it). 2. Accepting Cultural Relativism,

1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. 2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society. According to Cultural Relativism, so as to determine whether something is right, “all we need to do is ask whether the action is in line with the code of the society in question”. It seems that societies’ codes are perfect, yet they are not. And not only that: cultures can learn from other cultures’ codes (or simply from other cultures), but, as far as Cultural Relativism is concerned, it seems impossible, seeing that “if wright and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our culture, just as it is for other cultures”. 3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. “Progress means replacing the old ways with new and improved ways. Not only, as already mentioned, according to CR, each society’s code seem perfect and thus not improvable, but “by what standard do we judge the new ways as better?”. In this way, we doubt the total idea of progress: “if the old ways conformed to the standards of their time, then CR would not judge them by our standards.” For CR, there is only one way to improve a society: to make it better match its own ideals. No one, however, may challenge the ideals themselves, for they are by definition correct. 2. The differences in values between cultures often appear greater than they actually are. Many factors work together to produce the customs of a society. Not only are the society’s values important, but so are its religious beliefs, its factual beliefs, and its physical environment. 2. There are values that must be more or less universal. “There are some moral rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist”.

Moral Relativism – lecture notes, Lecture notes of Ethics

Related documents