Chapter 5 The Problem of Relativism and Morality McGraw-Hill © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

5.1-2 The Problem of Relativism and Morality  How is it possible for there to be objective moral standards given that moral judgments seem subjective?  What is it for an action to be right or a person to be good?  What constitutes the good life?

5.1-3 Active Euthanasia  George Zygmanic, who had become a quadriplegic as a result of a motorcycle accident and was in excruciating pain, asked his brother, Lester, to kill him.  Lester did.  Did Lester do the right thing? Why or why not?

5.1-4 Types of Moral Judgments  We judge actions to be right or wrong.  We judge people, their characters, and their motives to be good or bad.

5.1-5 Moral Theorizing  We justify our actions by appeal to moral principles. For example: it’s wrong to lie, it’s wrong to steal, it’s wrong to break promises, etc.  Can these moral principles be explained in terms of a unified moral theory? For example: Do they follow from a fundamental moral principle?

5.1-6 Morality and Moral Codes  Some say there’s nothing more to being moral than following a moral code.  But moral codes are often too general to provide specific guidance. For example: Does “Thou shalt not kill” mean it’s immoral to kill in self-defense?  They can also be internally inconsistent. For example: the Bible says: “Whosoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” How does this square with the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill?”

5.1-7 Descriptive vs. Normative Ethics  Descriptive ethics, practiced by sociologists, tries to identify the principles that people, in fact, use to make moral judgments.  Normative ethics, practiced by philosophers, tries to identify the principles that people should use to avoid doing wrong.

5.1-8 Evolutionary Ethics  Some thinkers believe that a descriptive account of the biological basis of moral behavior can yield a normative theory of ethics.  But from the fact that something is the case, we can’t conclude that it should be the case. For example: from the fact that in most cultures women are subservient to men, we can’t conclude that women should be subservient to men.

5.1-9 The Naturalistic Fallacy  The naturalistic fallacy is the attempt to derive a claim about what should be from a claim about what is.  It’s a fallacy because in a valid argument, there cannot be any concepts in the conclusion that don’t appear in the premises.

Constructing Moral Theories  Moral theories try to determine what makes an action right or a person good.  The data that moral theories try to explain is our considered moral judgments—those judgments that we accept after reflecting critically on them.

Reflective Equilibrium  Moral theories try to identify the principles that lie behind our considered moral judgments.  There is a dynamic interplay between ethical principles and moral judgments—accepting a powerful theory may make us give up some considered moral judgments and vice versa.  Our principles and judgments are in reflective equilibrium when no change in either would improve them.

Criteria of Adequacy for Moral Theories  Moral theories should be consistent with our considered moral judgments.  Moral theories should be consistent with our experience of the moral life—they should not imply things we know to be false like we’re morally infallible or can’t get into moral disagreements.  Moral theories should be workable—they should give specific guidance in specific situations.

Section 5.1 Don’t Question Authority Might Makes Right

Subjective Absolutism  What makes an action right is that one approves of it.  Suppose that someone approves of action A. Then A would be morally right.  Suppose that someone else disapproves of A. Then A would be morally wrong.  But it’s logically impossible for the same action to be both right and wrong.

Subjective Relativism  What makes an action right for someone is that it is approved by that person.  Problem: it conflicts with our experience of the moral life: It makes us morally infallible. It makes moral disagreement next to impossible. It sanctions obviously immoral actions.

Emotivism  Moral utterances are expressions of emotion. For example: Saying “Abortion is wrong” is like saying “Abortion…boo.”  Problems: Moral utterances cannot be true or false. There can be no moral disagreement.

Thought Experiment: Blanshard’s Rabbit  Suppose we come upon a dead rabbit (or fox) caught in a trap who obviously struggled for days to get free.  We would normally say, “It’s a bad thing that the rabbit (or fox) suffered so.”  Emotivists would have us believe that such a statement is not a moral judgment but an expression of emotion.

Cultural Relativism  What makes an action right is that it is approved by one’s culture.  In this view, individuals are not morally infallible, but cultures are.

Consequences of Cultural Relativism  It’s impossible to disagree with one’s culture and be right.  Thus any social reformer must be arguing for something that’s immoral. For example: In the 19 th century, slavery was approved by society and women’s suffrage wasn’t. Thus William Lloyd Garrison (an abolitionist) and Susan B. Anthony (a suffragette) were promoting immoral causes.  But that’s absurd—society cannot make an action right (or wrong) simply by believing it to be right (or wrong).

Consequences of Cultural Relativism  Moral disagreements must be about what one’s culture thinks. For example: If someone says abortion is wrong and another says it’s right, what they must really be arguing about is what their culture thinks about abortion.  But that’s absurd—moral disagreements cannot be solved by opinion polls.

Consequences of Cultural Relativism  The theory is unworkable because there’s no way to identify one’s true culture. For example: Suppose you were a black, Jewish, communist in Bavaria during Hitler’s reign.  What’s your true culture?  Insofar as we can’t identify our true culture, we can’t use cultural relativism to resolve moral disputes.

The Anthropological Argument for Cultural Relativism 1.People in difference societies make different moral judgments regarding the same action. 2.If so, they must accept different moral standards. 3.If they accept different moral standards, there are no universal moral standards. 4.Therefore, there are no universal moral standards.

The Anthropological Argument Evaluated  From the fact that people disagree about the morality of an action, it doesn’t follow that neither party to the disagreement is correct.  From the fact that people make different moral judgments, it doesn’t follow that they accept different moral standards.

The Logical Structure of Moral Judgments  Moral standard + factual beliefs = moral judgment.  Thus different moral judgments may be due to different factual beliefs. For example: No slave-owner would deny the moral standard that equals should be treated equally. What they would deny is that blacks are equal.

Thought Probe: When in Rome  Clitoridectomy is common in Gambia.  In 1987, Teneng Jahate, a native of Gambia and a French resident for five years, had her two young daughters circumcised.  Did she do the wrong thing?

The Divine Command Theory  What makes an action right is that God commands it to be done.  In this view, morality depends on God.

The Euthyphro Problem  Is an action right because God commands it to be done or does God command it to be done because it’s right?  According to the second alternative, morality does not depend on God.

God and Goodness  According to the divine command theory, God could have commanded us to kill, rape, steal, and torture.  But killing, raping, stealing, and torturing are wrong.  So God couldn’t have commanded that.  But if God is by definition good, then God can’t be used to define goodness, for the definition would be circular.

God and Reason  If God’s commands are not based on reasons, then they are irrational and arbitrary.  But we have no moral obligation to obey irrational and arbitrary commands.  Moreover, one who acts irrationally and arbitrarily is not worthy of worship.

Leibniz on the Divine Command Theory  “In saying that things are good simply by the will of God, one destroys without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power?”

Pike on the Divine Command Theory  “It is a necessity for God to be just, loving, merciful. He cannot be unjust, cruel, merciless….As is it is impossible to make two and two be five…so it is impossible for the Deity to make crime a merit, and love and gratitude crimes.”

Thought Probe: Commanded to Kill  Suppose that God spoke to you and told you to kill your spouse and your children.  Would you do it? Why or why not?  Would God’s commanding it justify it?

Judging God  There are many commands attributed to God in the Bible that we know are immoral. For example: “He that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” and “Whosover doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”  But if we can judge the dictates of God or the Bible to be immoral, we must have a standard of morality that’s independent of God or the Bible.

Are There Universal Moral Principles?  A self-evident truth is one which is such that if you understand it, you know that it’s true.  The Principle of Justice—Equals should be treated equally.  The Principle of Mercy—Unnecessary suffering is wrong.

Thought Probe: Moral Children  Research by William Damon suggests that even young children have a sophisticated sense of right and wrong that’s independent of cultural or parental authority.  Does this lend credibility to the claim that there are universal moral standards?

Thought Probe: Moral Knowledge  Renford Bambrough maintains: “We know that this child, who is about to undergo what would otherwise be painful surgery, should be given an anesthetic before the operation.”  Do we know this?  If so, does it show that there are objective moral truths?