On a blank sheet of paper: (do not write you name on it!) Name 2-3 things (actions) that you think are wrong/evil/immoral. You can be as general or as specific as you would like. For each item, give a brief reason. Name 2-3 characteristics of a person who is good/moral/praiseworthy. For each item, give a brief reason. What do you want to do for a living? (lawyer, doctor, cop, etc….)
What are the purposes of Morality? To keep society from falling apart. To ameliorate human suffering. To promote human flourishing. To resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways. To assign praise and blame, reward the good and punish the guilty.
The question of Relativism Are there (any) rules to live by and/or by which society or individuals should be governed? Is there such a thing as (objective) truth? right and wrong?
Relativism General definition The position which holds that there are no universal moral norms, or norms that apply to everyone. Two types: Individual (subjectivism)relativism Cultural (conventional) relativism
Individual (subjectivism) relativism There are no moral norms that apply to all people; one person should not make a judgment about another person’s moral code or actions. “Morality is in the eye of the beholder.” If subjectivism is correct then what we think of as morality is merely a matter of taste.
Ethical (conventional) relativism “Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness or wrongness of actions vary from society to society and that there are not absolute universal moral standards on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.” (John Ladd)
Ethical (conventional) relativism “... it has always seemed [to me] to be obvious that the dictates of morality arise from some sort of convention or understanding among people, that different people arrive at different understanding, and that there are no basic moral demands that apply to everyone.” (Gilbert Harman)
Cultural (conventional)relativism There are no moral norms that apply to all cultures; no culture should try to judge the moral codes of another culture Examples: samurai sword-testing female “circumcision” Aztec human sacrifice slavery in the United States treatment of women by the Taliban abortion in the United States
Relativism Overarching question – is there such a thing as objective knowledge/truth when it comes to ethics/morality? Subjective – varies from person to person (depends on the subject/person doing the thinking/feeling/etc.) – “there is no right or wrong in matters of taste” Objective – to exist or to be true independent of anyone’s opinion – truth/knowledge depends on the object – the thing that is being perceived, experienced, thought about, etc.
Three partial truths of relativism. Why it is appealing? 1. What is the basic position of relativism for each partial truth? 2. What is the partial truth? 3. What is the criticism of the authors?
I. No science, no knowledge 1. If it is not scientifically proven, it is not true (objectively) 2. There are different types of knowledge – and it is true that ethics is not science 3. But other types of knowledge are valid
II. Circumstances make a difference 1. Circumstances make all the difference 2. Circumstances do make some difference 3. Don’t take circumstances too far. Circumstances do not make all the difference.
III. Virtues of Tolerance and Compassion 1. Be tolerant/compassionate – don’t judge other’s morals 2. We should be tolerant/compassionate 3. Jesus meant not to be hypocritical – not judge the person Relativism – no judgment of morality of actions/ethical codes Jesus – no judgment of the person; yes to judgment of wrong actions/ethical codes (for their good!); and even when judging actions, try to understand special circumstances
Why relativism is wrong and unappealing 1. Relativism is self-contradictory 2. Relativism is impracticable 3. Different cultures – not all different moral rules