Relativism: Cultural and Ethical * *

Ethical Theory: Relativism Relativism: the general philosophical theory that states that there are no firm criteria for judging one individual’s or one culture’s set of moral values, principles, and guidelines of ethical conduct as better than or more rational or superior to any other. Ethical Absolutism/Universalism: the general philosophical theory that states that there is a single moral principle (or single set of related moral principles) in terms of which all cultural and all individual values are to be judged. * *

Varieties of Relativism Descriptive Cultural Relativism: Different cultures do in fact have different beliefs and values about how to judge particular actions. Normative Ethical Relativism: Ethical values and beliefs are relative to a particular culture or society and cannot be judged outside that culture. Each culture’s values are “right” for that culture. Individual Relativism (“Subjectivism”): Ethical values are relative to each unique individual. Whatever an individual designates as the “right” values just are the “right” values in virtue of having been so designated. * *

Evil Actions Humane/Good Actions -Giving a last meal and quick death to a prisoner’s father. -Taking a risk to bring water to thirsty and starving prisoners. -A guard takes risk to save the life of a prisoner. -Taking pity on others even when you don’t have to. -International attempts to save innocents from death. -Rudi Maserek -”Red-Blonde Girl” -Refusing the protect or help fellow prisoner/escapee. p. 243 -Using other humans simply for sport. -The cruelty and lack of compassion even for those who have served you. -The torture of young children in the winter shortly before death. -The “moral corruption” of the camp workers. -Stangl’s “macabre fakeries” Stangl’s “moral unreasonableness” p. 230-1 * *

Arguments for Ethical Relativism The “Cultural Differences” Argument (1) Ethical (or individual) relativism is true because different societies have different moral codes. Clarifying Question: Do we mean the professed or actual morality of a culture? Objection 1: Why should “majority opinion” determine what is moral or immoral? Objection 2: If subjectivism is true, doesn’t this mean that we cannot give moral praise or make moral mistakes? Objection 3: “Cultural Differences Argument” is logically invalid. * *

Validity and the “Cultural Differences Argument” or CD Premise 1: Different cultures have different moral codes. ---------------------- (c) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Valid Argument: Any argument whose structure is “truth-preserving”, i.e., whose structure will guarantee a true conclusion provided the supporting premise or premises are true. Invalid Argument: Any argument whose structure is NOT “truth-preserving”, i.e., whose structure will NOT guarantee a true conclusion even assuming the supporting premise or premises are true. The premises of the CD argument concerns what people believe to be true. The conclusion of the CD argument concerns what really is true. A significant mistake in the cultural differences argument is that it attempts to draw a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the mere fact that people disagree about it. * *

-------------------- All cats are mortal Harry is a cat -------------------- (C) Harry is mortal VALID Mary is mortal ---------------------------- (c) Mary is a cat INVALID

Arguments for Relativism, cont. The 'Anti-Arrogance' Argument (2) Ethical relativism must be accepted as true if we are to be tolerant toward others, especially those of different cultures. It is arrogant to try to judge the conduct of other people living in other cultures. We should instead adopt an attitude of tolerance. Possible Objection: Is this argument for Ethical relativism self- defeating? Isn’t a commitment to tolerance, understood minimally as not using force or the threat of force to change someone’s views, itself a value? A consistent ethical relativist must “tolerate” an intolerant society that refuses to tolerate, and must (presumably) act intolerantly when in those cultures. * *

Arguments for Relativism, cont. The “Absolutism is False” Argument (3) Ethical relativism is true because ethical absolutism must be false. In other words, there is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another so all ethical judgments are relative to culture. Objection: Analogy to Health. No absolute or universal standard of health is needed to guide the actions of healthcare practitioners. Why assume we need an absolute set of values to judge actions and conduct? Compare with the Ethical Pluralism of Ancient Ethicists such as Aristotle. * *