Readings: Graham Sumner: Folkways (excerpt)
William Shaw, The Nature of Morality (section on relativism)
Tom Regan, Ethical Thinking and Theory (section on consistency of principles)

SOME EMPIRICAL FACTS
There are moral disagreements: cultures (and individuals) differ in their opinions about morals.
Some of these disagreements are actually disagreements about facts; they disappear (are resolved) when we clear all the relevant facts.
However, some of the moral differences are fundamentally differences about values. They persist even when we agree on all the relevant empirical facts .Lets call this sort of disagreements fundamental moral disagreements:.

CULTURAL ETHICAL  RELATIVISM (CER)
Sometimes, facing this sort of disagreement, people say that morality is just a moter of culture. We we try to flesh out what people mean when they say that morality is a matter of culture, we usually wind up with something like the following:

(CER)  Morality is relative to a given culture.

The view implies that

• "Right" means "socially approved [by a society in which the act takes place]"
• Such terms as "obligatory", "required", forbidden", "good", "bad", "virtuous", etc. can be defined in an analogous way. 
• We should pick out your moral principles by following what our society approves of.

Some philosophers seem to include more then CER in the definition of CER. For example, Graham Sumner claims what follows:

Meaning of "immoral." When, therefore, the ethnographers apply condemnatory or depreciatory adjectives to the people whom they study, they beg the most important question which we want to investigate; that is, What are standards, codes, and ideas of chastity, decency, propriety, modesty, etc., and whence do they arise? The ethnographical facts contain the answer to this question. . . . "Immoral" never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. Therefore the mores and the morality may move together, and there is no permanent or universal standard by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticised.

Sometimes it is meant to imply

(?)  It is wrong to judge the moral practices of another culture.

We can understand a motivation behind (?). However, stricktly speaking, (?) is not the part of CER. CER implies only that we ought to follow the morals and practices of our own society. Those moral may (and sometimes do) imply that we can judge practices of other societies.

ETHICAL UNIVERSALISM (EU)

• Basic ethical standards (the fundamental moral principles) are universally correct; they are applicable to all similarly situated people (in all societies, at all times).
• Universalism does not imply that we know what these principles are. Moral principles may be hard to discover. So, we can make moral errors about morality.
• CR and EU are incompatible; they contradict each other.

ETHICAL ABSOLUTISM (EA)

• Basic ethical principles are extremely simple and admit to hardly any (or no) exceptions).
• Some philosophers use the terms universalism and absolutism as synonyms, I try to distinguish them.

RELATIONS BETWEEN EU, ER, EA

• Universalism and relativism are incompatible.
• Universalism does not imply absolutism; for universalism allows that basic principles may be very complex (as complex as, for example, the principle of utility, or Kant's categorical imperatives).
• Normally absolutists are universalists, it's a very special kind of universalism 

SOME REASONS OFFERED IN SUPPORT  OF (CR) 

• Cultures and societies disagree widely about morality.
• Morality is a product of culture and nothing which is such a product can be objective or universal. 
• There are no clear ways to resolve moral differences and disagreements. (No amount of argument may convince one to change his/her moral views)
• We ought to respect the ways of other cultures. This implies that relativism is relativism is true.

  Moral Disagreements:
  1) Cultures and societies disagree widely about morality.
  2) If cultures and societies disagree widely about morality, then morality is not universal.
  ______
  3) Morality is not universal.

  Universalist can respond in two ways:
  A) She can challenge premise 1 and maintain that, once we distinguish morality from other normative systems, and once we clarify all empirical facts, the differences between cultures are no as wide as a relativist maintains.
  B) She can challenge premise 2 and maintain that even if cultures (people) disagree about morality, the true (correct) morality is universal.
  For example, people and cultures disagree about physical, geographical, historiacal and other facts. This does not mean that relativism in those domains is true.

  Morality is a product of culture argument:
  1) Morality is a product of culture.
  2) Nothing which is such a product can be objective or universal.
  ______
  3) Morality is not universal.

  Universalist can respond that premise 2 is false. Science is the product of culture but true scientific principles and laws are universal.

  No clear ways to resolve moral differences and disagreement:
  1) There are no clear ways to resolve moral differences and disagreements.
  2) If (1), then morality is not universal.
  ______
  3) Morality is not universal.

  Universalist can respond that premise 1 is false. A full response would require explaining what this method is. Regan sketches such a method. We will start discussing this meythod shortly.

SOME REASONS OFFERED AGAINST (CR) 

• Reformers dilemma
• Moral progress argument
• Learning from others
• CR is self contradictory
• We must not be arogant about our way, and sometimes we must restrain ourselves from trying to change the views of others. But, this may only impliy the attitude of tolerance, and not the attitude of accetance.

  Reformers Dilemma
  1) If CR is true, then everyone who proposes a moral change is mistaken (wrong).
  2) Sometimes those who propose a change are not mistaken (or wrong).
  ____
  3. So, CR is false.

  Premise (1) is true. It also seems to me that most of us would endorse (2). So, it seems to be a convincing argument against the Cultural Relativism.

  Moral Progress Argument
  1) If CR is true, there cannot be any real progress in ethics.
  2) Sometimes we make progress in ethics.
  ______
  3) Therefore, CR is false.

  Learning Argument
  1) If CR is true, then we can never learn morality from other cultures.
  2) Sometimes we learn morality from other cultures.
  ____
  3) So, CR is false.

  CR is self-contradictory (The Problem about the Multiplicity of Societies )
  Factual assumption(s):

  • Some actions occur in more than one society, at the same time
  • these societies disagree about the evaluation of these actions. 

  1) If CR is true, then some actions are both right and wrong.
  2) No action can be both right and wrong (it is an absurdity to maintain that some action is both right and wrong in the same respect, at the same time).

  ______
  3) Therefore, CR is false. [From (1) and (2)]

  Tom Regan discusses in his article a version of (CR) that can be refuted by this argument. (See the section about contradictions>)

TOLERANCE AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM

An Argument from Tolerance against Universalism
1) If U is true, then we must never be tolerant of attitudes other than ours (for whenever we disagree, we must believe that others are morally wrong and wrong behavior must not be tolerated).
2) Sometimes we must be tolerant.
3) Thus, U is false. [From (1) and (2)]

Tolerance: An attitude that we sometimes take with regard to other people and/or cultures with whom we disagree. Tolerance involves two elements:

A) we assume that the others (their actions) are wrong;
B) we do not constrain their behavior; we assume we do not have a (moral and/or legal) right to force them to change their ways, we acknowledge that our interference with their ways must not go beyond the limits of "friendly" persuasion. 

If this account of tolerance is correct, then universalism is compatible with tolerance (premise #1 is false). In fact tolerance presupposes some universal standards. Those who are tolerant must assume that the views of others are sometimes wrong (otherwise there is nothing to tolerate).
Someone may ask why we should be tolerant if we are universalist. One possible answer is that tolerance is useful, in fact, it may be the best practical approach to some moral differences.

Another Argument against Universalism

1) If U is true, then we must enforce/spread our attitudes in a militant way.
2) Sometimes we must not be militant is spreading/enforcing our attitudes.
3) Thus, U is false. [From (1) and (2)]

Again, premise (1) is false. Some Universalists may be militant in their spreading their views (may even use force to change the actions of others). But there is nothing about Universalism in general that forces them to be militant.

SUBJECTIVISM (SB)

•  "X is right" means "I like X."
•  We are to pick out our moral principles by following our feelings.

OBJECTIONS TO SB

 The "Immoral Feelings" Objection: Assume that I like getting drunk and, while I'm drunk, I like to hurt people and animals.

1. If SB is true, then it is morally right for me to hurt people and animals.
2. But it is morally wrong to hurt people and animals simply because one feels like doing so.
3. Thus, SB is false. [From (1) and (2)]

Top of this page

Professional Ethics

Environmental Ethics