Week 4: Moral Relativism

Week 4: Moral Relativism

-Write up on the board:
a). Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
c).b). Cultural Relativism: The Cultural Differences argument
c). Homework: The Argument from Tolerance.
Return to Homework Assignment.
Part A
1).Duties and responsiblities of a doctor (lead into deontology- week 4-)
2).Conflict- to alleviate pain; to save lives; (note that, in some cases, there is little guidance as to what to do in such cases).
3).And 4). Note that the teacher has assumed that there is such a distinction.
We will come to the euthanasia debate in week 9).
-How is this case similar to the Liferaft Case? How is it different?
Decisions based on the principle of maximizing the good are Utilitarian. Those concerning duties and rights are based on Deontology. These will be covered in Week 3 and 4.
-elicit (or remind students of) objections. Remind students to keep these in mind, as these are basic objections that they should keep in mind in essays and the exams.

Cultural Relativism

Step 1.
We will be discussing the death penalty, euthanasia, drugs, etc. But all such debate presupposes that there is some universal moral principle that we can agree on. But first we need to deal with the objection that such a universal moral principle does not exist.
The most common claim of this type:
Metaethical Cultural Relativism
Claim: Moral claims and beliefs are only relatively true or false, to the relevant cultural context.
So, consider the following claim:

p: it is morally right to execute someone for stealing a loaf of bread

p is either true or not true
depends entirely on the cultural context.
Rachels gives a number of claims to defend CR.
(Have students refer to the text- Rachels pp.18-19).
Note that there are in fact two distinct arguments here, and that it is crucial that they aren't confused
Moral codes vary from one culture to the next.
The fact of moral difference is explained by a lack of a universal, correct moral principle.
It's just arrogant to assume otherwise.

What is the actual argument here? And what is assumed? That is, what is the assumed premise?
The two arguments: (Write up on the board). (Show that they are actually different).

Cultural Differences Argument
1).There are different Moral beliefs found across cultures and history
2).Different cultures would have different moral beliefs only if moral beliefs were true, not universally, but only relative to particular cultures.
Conclusion: Moral beliefs are true only relative to cultures.

Is this a good argument? Recall- there are two steps in assessing the argument. The first stage is assessing the structure of the argument; that is, deciding if it is valid.
1).Why does disagreement show that there are no universal moral truths? -What if we substitute the terms- substitute for « moral beliefs » « beliefs about curing diseases » or « beliefs about the shape of the earth. »
2).(This counterargument is controversial. It assumes that there is some basic similarity between facts about the world and facts about ethics, so it may be question- begging (That is, we might be assuming the very claim that we 're supposed to be arguing for) . What about a different set of beliefs? Say, beliefs concerning physical beauty? ).
3).Even if Premise 2 is true, there are problems in determining how to decide on any particular moral problem. If we accept that morality is relative, why is it relative to cultures? Why not to individuals, or to families? How old does the group have to be? (Say, North Korean society, or Israeli society?) And how big does a 'culture' have to be? If we are working out if same- sex marriage is morally right in the US or Japan, and how do we do it? (remember, 'morally right' is not the same thing as 'legally right.'). Who do we ask?
Moral Relativism is incapable of resolving any dispute that cannot be reduced to the terms of fidelity to tradition. -Yet- which traditions are really traditional?

-Example- Many people in the USA and Europe (some still do) assume that Christian teaching forbids drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. Yet there is no mention of smoking anything in the Bible, and alcohol was certainly not banned to the Jews (see the Song of Songs) or early Christians ( Jesus turned water into wine). Ditto clitirodectomy- Muhammed actually thought that sex without foreplay was immoral, on the grounds that it was cruel, let alone the destruction of sexual organs. Buddhist monks eat meat and have sex, yet both are forbidden in Buddhist literature. So- how do we decide on what the actual morals of a culture are?
4).Note that any hard Cultural Relativism renders all notion of moral improvement incoherent. If we ban slavery or give women the vote, this is merely change, not improvement.
5).We have no way of declaring some cultures to be less moral than our own, or, conversely, morally better than our own.
6).'x is right' simply means 'everyone in the culture accepts that x is right'- but some cultures are themselves quite nasty, and intolerant.
7).Obviously, accepting CR makes any moral pronouncements incoherent. This puts accepting CR very close to full- blown nihilism.

Now we will test out the first premise of the argument.
Testing Premise 1.
Go into Part B. of the Homework
From last time: -Activities or Practices that are Intolerable.
-Self- mutilation. (Buddhist monks that would remove limbs- the Lotus Sutra advocates self- immolation as the « highest offering ») (Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE, an early Christian- cut off his own penis- but remember that we're not clear on whether self injury is actually immoral). In the twelfth century, a nun at Watton, a monastery of the Order of St. Gilbert, disliked the cloistered life, fell in love with a young canon, and she became pregnant. When the disgrace became known to the sisters, the canon fled but was then caught by the sisters and brought back to Watton. The guilty nun, in the presence of her sisters, was forced to castrate her own lover and then return to her cell.
Also- incest
-cannibalism
slavery -sexual slavery (Japan during WWII)
-pornography (Visitor Q still banned in NZ)
-genocide -Darfur

Rights of Women in Iran
Zhila Izadi- 13- pregnant to her 15 year old brother- stoned to death 16th October 2004. (Her brother was sentenced to 150 lashes).
August 15th 2004- Ateqeh Sahaleh- 16- executed (hung) for having a « sharp tongue » in the town of Neka (trial for « acts incompatible with chastity »).
Yanonami of Brazil and Venezuela – all villages are temporary. 40% of Yanomami males have killed someone; 25 % will die violently. Only 20,000 remaining.
Http://crystalinks.com/yanomami.

Warren Steed Jeffs- on the run for organizing hundreds of arranged marriages between underage girls (as young as 13) and middle-aged men; of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter- Day Saints- Utah, Mormon. (Mormonism disavowed polygamy in 1900). FLDS church has 10,000 members.
60 million Indians are members of the Dalit/ Achuta caste in India, often denied basic human rights.

Step 2.
Rachels disagrees with Premise 1.
There are different Moral beliefs found across cultures and history.
Why does he disagree with this claim?
pp. 23-26. section 2.5 and 2.6 « Why there is Less Disagreement than It Seems. »
« It is easy to overestimate the the extent of those differences. »p. 23
Claim 1: differences in 'mores' are due to « differences » « in our belief systems, not in our values. »
Is this true? Rachels uses the example of the ban on eating cows in India.
Claim 2: it is simply the tough economic and environmental conditions that require infanticide and other apparent moral differences.
So- let's test out these claims.
Of the atrocities listed above, are they all intelligible in terms of
a. morally neutral empirical beliefs, or b. environmental or pragmatic factors? That is, are they in a lifeboat case?
(Class discussion)
(There are in fact big differencs in attitudes towards women, children, and non- group members).
-How does Rachels' set of atrocities (killing babies, eating cows) compared to our list?
Do you think Rachels has committed some error in his reasoning here? (biased sample, maybe?)

Rachels goes on to argue that no society could survive that allowed for theft, murder or lying.
-Is this true? « Society on any large scale would become impossible. » (What about the Yanomami, North Korea, etc?) Can a society survive where most people are slaves? (Sparta). Where children are regularly killed? (Sparta).



What you need to know:
-You should be able to explain to someone the Cultural Differences Argument, and what the various arguments against it are.
-You should be able to offer a counterargument to Rachel's criticism of Premise 1.
-You should be aware of what the costs of accepting CR are
-You should also be aware that, repugnant as the argument is, we still haven't knocked it down- it may still be (logically) true. That an idea is repugnant does not make it untrue.
For Homework:
For Lecture 4 we will look at the Argument from Tolerance. To get into the practice of reading texts critically, I'd like to you to read the passage from William Graham Sumner(1840-1910) in the The Right Thing To Do text (pp.31-36).The argument in the Sumner piece is very vague; accordingly, it is difficult to work out what the actual argument is. (He isn't a philosopher, after all). In fact it is a good example of what I don't want in your term essays- a lot of rhetoric.
Again, this is not coursework, and you are not required to hand anything in. This exercise will be useful for writing one of the two essays on CR, and for exam preparation. Thinking about these questions should also help in understanding Lecture 4.
Questions for Reading Sumner.

1).What exactly are the 'folkways'? (pp. 31-32).
2).Where do they originate? (pp. 31-32).
3).Do you think Sumner makes a distinction between morality, superstition and religion? Do you agree with his assessment here? Why, or why not?
4).What is 'ethnocentrism'?
5).Does Sumner think that ethnocentrism (or racism) is a good attitude to take, or a bad attitude? What exactly does he say that makes you think so?
6).Do you think that ethnocentrism (or racism) is unusual in different cultures, or is it typical?
7).Does Sumner think that ethnocentrism (or racism) is unusual in different cultures, or is it typical?
8).If Sumner in fact thinks that ethnocentrism is bad, what moral principle is he assuming? Is he presupposing an independant, moral standpoint? What could it be? Does he think ethnocentrism leads to harm, or injustice? Or is it some other reason? (You'll have to guess this one).
9).Is he entitled to such a moral standpoint?
10).Sumner writes that (p.35). The « philosophy of the age » (that is, now) is merely the « reflection » of the « ruling ideas » of a particular culture at a particular time. « Every attempt to win an outside standpoint » in ethical matters is a « delusion. » But Sumner is proposing a philosophy concerning ethical matters. Is there a problem here?

Lecture 4
1).Write up on the board:
a) critiquing Sumner
b). Argument from Tolerance
c). Utilitarianism - preempt
1). Go over homework questions.

Moral Relativism- the Argument from Tolerance.

This is the argument as I understand it (Rachels does not write it out schematically and seems to accept it right to the end of the chapter. In fact he seems to waver on this point).

1).We should accept whichever meta- ethical view which promotes tolerance.
2).Only Meta- Ethical Cultural Relativism promotes tolerance by placing all cultures on a par and avoiding ethnocentrism and cultural imperialism.
Conclusion: We should accept Cultural Relativism.

Note that this argument is very different to the Cultural Differences argument.
The CR differences argument was based on claims about human cultures (anthropology, in effect) and made a claim about the nature of morality. This argument makes no such claim- it argues merely that we accept CR on pragmatic grounds- not that it is true.
Why would we try such an argument? Because it is extremely difficult to establish the correct meta- ethical stance rationally. Philosophers don't agree on anything, least of all meta- ethics.
The argument looks very appealing (to Westerners in particular- who have a terrible history of cultural arrogance) but we should be careful. What exactly do we mean by tolerance? What are its legitimate limits?


Crucial Question:
Why might someone think that adopting a tolerant attitude requires us to adopt metaethical CR?
Two linked reasons are commonly given (recall Sumner)
1).If meta- ethical cultural relativism is true, each culture's morality is equally good; so we would be tolerant.
2).If ME CR is false, then ME absolutism is true, and this justifies moral superiority in certain cultures.
Is the first question true?
Whether tolerance is good or bad is a moral question. Thus, if ME CR is true, it applies to this claim as well.
-So, if a culture is imperialistic and intolerant, it might be right for that culture to behave in an intolerant way (this very problem comes up in the Sumner piece).

So ME CR can justify intolerance. So claim 1 is false.
Objection to reason 2:
You can consistently – believe that moral truths hold absolutely rather than only relatively,
AND
be a moral fallibilist- that is, believe that no one person or culture knows with certain what moral truths are actually, objectively true. That is, you can believe in moral objectivism (believe that there is such a thing as a universally binding morality) and not believe that anyone knows it, including yourself. You may be an objectivist and yet restrain yourself from criticising the practices of other cultures, as you aren't sure if you've got the right morality yourself.

Lecture 4
What You Need to Know
-You should be able to explain to someone the Argument from Tolerance
-You should be able to see why people find it appealing
-You should be able to expose its most basic flaw- it undermines any possibility of making moral claims, whilst making a moral claim ( 'tolerance is good').
-You should be able to see that Cultural Relativism is neither necessary nor sufficient to promote tolerance.



Homework for Week 3 (Utilitarianism)
Your friend (call her x) comes to you, apparently desperate for money. She says she needs 100,000¥ to fix her car, which she needs to get to work. She promises to pay you back at the end of the month. A month later, you bump into her, and you try to politely ask for the money back. « Uh, sorry, but- I can't give you that money back. » « Why not? »you ask. « I sent it all to the Red Crescent/ Red Cross, so that they can help children who were seriously injured in the fighting in the Middle East. » Your friend then promptly pulls an envelope with Lebanese postage stamps on it, and shows you the contents- a photo of a smiling child of 10, and a neatly written message of thanks. « thank you so much x! I love Japan and want to come there some day and see you! Love, Selma,» she's written. « That's all very touching, but what about my money? You made a promise! » you say. « How can you be so selfish! » declares your friend. « You don't need that money back- but I've saved lives with that money!Look how happy Selma is! I gave her hope! » You shake your head.
1). Is your friend immoral, for breaking a promise to you? Or for, in essence, stealing from you? Or is she a saint?
2).Assuming that x has been reading the ethics coursebook that you lent her, and that she has
since become a Utilitarian, is she morally committed (by Utilitarian philosophy) to honor promises?
3).Is this a serious problem for Utilitiarianism, or can it be saved by adding something?
4).Are you going to lend x any money in the future? (Why do you think I asked you this?)