I. Cultural Relativism (sociological relativism): the
descriptive view that different groups of people have different
moral standards for evaluating acts as right or wrong. |
|
A. Hence, it is not an ethical doctrine--it's a sociological
or observational conclusion--even so; the view is somewhat
ambiguous. |
|
B. For example, different groups might have the same basic moral
principle, but apply the principle in radically different
situations. (If we take the principle of the greatest good for the
greatest number as an instance, then this utilitarian principle could be instantiated
both in the present day U.S.'s custom to care for the aged and
infirm and the historical Inuit custom for the elderly and infirm go
off to die rather than endanger the tribe as it moves to winter
quarters. The same principle here has two significantly different
applications.) |
|
|
1. A second sense of cultural relativism is less obvious. I.e.,
that different cultures differ on basic moral principles. |
|
|
2. A possible reason for the observation of cultural relativism is shown by
the example of basic moral principles which could be said to support different moral
rules according to the interpretations of different cultures. In the
following diagrams, there are two vastly different interpretations
listed for each moral principle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Play Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________|________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"An eye for an eye." |
|
|
"Love your neighbor." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leisure activity is part of the good life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________|________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Physical exercise is good for you." |
|
|
"Develop your mind. (You are not an animal.)" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Ethical Relativism: the prescriptive view that (1)
different groups of people ought to have different ethical standards
for evaluating acts as right or wrong, (2) these different beliefs
are true in their respective societies, and (3) these different
beliefs are not instances of a basic moral principle. |
|
A. The ethical relativist often derives support for his position by two
basic mistakes: |
|
|
1. The relativist confuses cultural (or sociological) relativism with ethical
relativism, but cultural relativism is a descriptive view and
ethical relativism is a
prescriptive view. (E.g., cultural relativism describes
the way the way people actually behave, and ethical
relativism prescribes the way people ought to behave. |
|
|
2. The ethical relativist often argues as follows: |
|
|
An absolute ethical standard has never been proved beyond doubt
in the history of thought. |
|
|
|
Thus, an absolute ethical standard does not exist. |
|
|
|
|
a. This argument is an instance ad ignorantiam fallacy. |
|
|
|
p is unproved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not-p is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the fact that a statement has not been proved, we can logically draw
no conclusion. |
|
B. Objections to ethical relativism. |
|
|
1. The Differing Ideals Objection (or, as it is sometimes
called, the linguistic objection): it is inconsistent to say that the same practice is
considered right in one society and considered wrong in another. (If "right" and
"wrong" are to have consistent meaning, then the terms
must be used in the same manner.) |
|
|
|
a. Consider a small child's use of the word "duck" to
stand for anything: e.g., a book, a chair, or a person.
For a word to have meaning, there must be some minimum standard for the application of the term.
(We need to be able to say what is not a duck for the term to
have meaning.) |
|
|
|
b. Moreover, the ethical relativist who makes the judgment that one society
is better than another contradicts himself. (E.g., Consider
the judgment that the present
German state is a better society than Nazi Germany was in the 1940's.) To reach such
a conclusion, the relativist would need to appeal to an
ethical standard by which to judge one society better--but this
"standard" is precisely what the relativist denies. |
|
|
Possible counter-objections (by the ethical relativist): |
|
|
|
a. The relativist sometimes states that "right" and "wrong" have no consistent
meaning. These words reflect only emotion or perhaps the ceremonial
use of language. In other words, this defense shades into ethical
subjectivism. |
|
|
|
|
Counter-counter-objection (CCO by the ethical absolutist): The
problem with believing that "right" and "wrong"
have no consistent meaning is the ordinary use of words in this case
results in meaninglessness. What would happen if
people used the same word in different situations to refer to
different things? Communication would not take place. |
|
|
|
b. Some ethical relativists believe ethical words are reducible to non-ethical values; e.g., these
words have to do with recommendations for survival or
well-being. |
|
|
|
|
CCO by the ethical absolutist: the problem here is just
the difficulty of understanding the nature of a non-ethical
value. Would a non-ethical value be an aesthetic value? |
|
|
|
c. Some relativists believe we can justify relativism by intuition, revelation, authority,
etc. |
|
|
|
|
CCO by the ethical absolutist:: these attempts are subjectively based;
they differ from time to time and place to place. |
|
|
2. Mental Health Objection to ethical relativism (from the definition or
criterion of a group): If "what is right in one group is wrong in
another," where exactly does one group end and another begin? |
|
|
|
(Note: we do have some trouble shifting value outlooks
while moving from our families, to our friends, to our place of
worship, and to our jobs. Picture yourself at a party with persons
from these different groups. Q.v., Erving Goffman's The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life.) |
|
|
|
Suppose in the diagram below, the letters of the alphabet represent individuals and the
color-shaded areas represent different groups. A is a
member of Group I (gray) and Group II (tan). If Group I and II have
different values, then it follows that A cannot follow a consistent set of values.
Person A cannot be "centered" and "becomes different things to
different people." Over time, such a position might lead to psychological
difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group II |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group I |
G |
H |
I |
J |
K |
L |
|
Which values should A follow? Group I or II? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M |
N |
O |
P |
Q |
R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
T |
U |
V |
W |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counter-objections to the Mental Health Objection (by the relativist): |
|
|
|
1. Right and wrong are to be determined in the situation. |
|
|
|
2. Right and wrong are to be determined by what the majority
determine at the time and place. |
|
|
|
3. Right and wrong are ultimately established by power or authority. |
|
|
C. Ad Populum
Objection to the relativist's belief that ethics is established
by what most people believe: Simply
because most people think something is right does not
thereby make it right. Simply because most people
think a statement is true does not make that statement
true |
|
|
|
a. In the 14th century, most persons thought the earth
was flat, but this belief did not make the earth flat at that time. |
|
|
|
b. If different groups determine different meanings to what is right and wrong, then there is
no objective basis for the consistent use of the words. |
|
|
Counter-objections to the ad populum objection (by the relativist): |
|
|
|
a. The same difficulty of establishing the meaning of
"right" and "wrong" exits for the absolutist, pari
passu. The absolutist has been unable to state a universally
agreed upon meaning to the terms. (Notice that this response is a variant of the ad hominem--"my
point might be bad, but yours is worse.") |
|
|
|
b. Other solutions to the questions of the meaning of key ethical
terms according to the relativist are possible by appealing to survival value, consensus
gentium, and so on. |
|
|
D. Moral Progress Objection: If ethical relativism were correct,
there could be no such thing as moral improvement or purpose in
cultures or a person's life. To have improvement, we must have a
standard by which to judge the difference in moral values. |
|
|
Counter-objections (by the relativist): |
|
|
|
a. That's correct--we can make no such judgment that one
society is better than another. We could only judge by our own
values. |
|
|
|
b. If something like "survival value" is used to ground
moral beliefs, then moral improvement might be identified with
"increased knowledge concerning survival of the society." |
III. Ethical Absolutism: the prescriptive view that there
are basic or fundamental ethical principles which are true without
qualification or exception as to time, condition, or circumstance. |
|
A. Examples: Kant's categorical imperative, the principle of
utility, or the Christian commandment to love God and neighbor. |
|
B. All other ethical rules, principles, ideals, and norms are
contingent upon whether they are entailed by basic or fundamental
moral principles (Q.v., the Case Study on Internal Moral
Standards.) |
IV. Ethical Nihilism: the view that ethical terms such as
"right" and "wrong" have no meaning or are
nonsense. |
|
A. Objection: but something is meant when we say, "X
is wrong." |
|
B. Counter-objections (by the nihilist): |
|
|
1. If there is no empirical meaning to the terms, they have no
"cash value." (Q.v., positivism.) |
|
|
2. "Whatever can be said, can be said clearly." The
burden of proof that the terms have meaning is on the non-nihilist. |
V. Ethical Skepticism: the view that ethical terms such as
"right" and "wrong" might have meaning but their
meaning cannot be established. |
|
Our objection to skepticism at this point is methodological.
Ethical skepticism should
not be held a priori at the beginning of an investigation but
should only be a possible outcome after a thorough study. |