Summary
Summary Ethiek (Shafer-Landau) H19
- Course
- Institution
Summary of 6 pages for the course Ethiek at UL
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
mlmvanloon
Reviews received
Content preview
Ethics – Metaethics: The Status of Morality – Chapter 19 – Ethical RelativismMoral Skepticism
Each of us has out doubts about morality. But there is another kind of doubt, one that can
undermine all of our confidence in morality. The worry, specifically, is that moral
skepticism – the denial of objective moral standards – is correct, and that morality
therefore lacks any real authority. The notion of objectivity, like so many others that we
have seen in these pages, is ambiguous. Objective moral standards are those that
apply to everyone, even if people don’t believe that they do, even if people are indifferent
to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone’s desires. Moral claims are
objectively true whenever they accurately tell us what these objective moral standards
are or what they require of us.
But are there any objective moral truths? There are reasons for doubt. Is such doubts are
correct, then ethical objectivism must be false. Ethical objectivism is the view that
some moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively
true.
There are basically two forms of moral skepticism: moral nihilism and ethical
relativism.
Moral nihilism is the view that there are no moral truths at all. According to the moral
nihilist, when we take a step back from the issues that engage our emotions, we can see
that nothing is right and nothing wrong. The world will one day be fully described by
science, and science has no need of moral categories. In the words of the brilliant
Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), we gild and stain a value-free world with
our feelings and desires.
By contrast, ethical relativists claim that some moral rules really are correct, and that
these determine which moral claims are true and which false. Many are true. People
sometimes get it right in ethics, and they do that when their beliefs agree with the correct
moral standards. But these standards are never objectively correct. Rather, these
standards are correct only relative to each person or each society. Morality is a human
construct – we make it up – and like the law, or like standards of taste, there is no
uniquely correct set of rules to follow.
Two Kinds of Ethical Relativism
It actually comes in two varieties: cultural relativism and individual relativism
(usually referred to as ethical subjectivism, a name we’ll use from now on). Cultural
relativism claims that the correct moral standards are relative to cultures or societies;
ethical subjectivism claims that the correct moral standards are those endorsed by each
individual. Consider subjectivism first. It says that:
An act is morally acceptable just because (a) I approve of it, or (b) my
commitments allow it.
An action is wrong just because (a) I disapprove of it, or (b) my commitments
forbid it.
Personal conviction is the ultimate measure of morality. Subjectivists think that there are
right answers in ethics, but that these are always relative to teach person’s values. If this
is correct, each person’s moral standards are equally plausible.
Cultural relativism instead locates the ultimate standard of morality within each culture’s
commitments. It says that:
An act is morally acceptable just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the
society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those
ideals.
,Both subjectivists and relativists regard people as the authors of morality. The
fundamental difference between these two views is whether each person, or each society,
gets to have the final say in ethics.
Some Implications of Ethical Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism
Moral Infallibility
There are legitimate moral standards (contrary to nihilism), but their legitimacy depends
crucially on our support (contrary to objectivism). Subjectivists are suspicious of cultural
relativism because of their belief that societies can be deeply mistaken about what is
right and wrong. Relativists admit that some social beliefs can be morally mistaken. But if
relativists are right, those ideals can never be immoral, since they just are the ultimate
moral standards for each society. The subjectivists seem to have a valid criticism here.
The basic ideals of some cultures do appear to be deeply mistaken. These ‘wrong’
assumptions are found at the heart of many cultures. The extreme sexism at the heart of
honor killings is but one of many examples that raise doubts about cultural relativism.
The iconoclast – the person deeply opposed to conventional wisdom – would, by
definition, always be morally mistaken. This has struck many people as seriously
implausible.
Subjectivism faces a similar problem. Subjectivists make each person’s basic
commitments morally infallible. When it comes to the basic commitments themselves,
subjectivism denies that these can ever be false of immoral.
According to both kinds of relativism, the origins of our basic moral beliefs are irrelevant.
No matter how we came by them, the relativist claims that our ultimate moral beliefs
cannot be mistaken.
Moral Equivalence
Subjectivists grant that your moral values, which very likely oppose the ones just
mentioned (slavery etc.), are also correct. Ethical subjectivism is a doctrine of moral
equivalence; everyone’s basic moral views are as plausible as everyone else’s. If all moral
views are on a par with one another, then this is a threat to tolerance, rather than
support for it. That’s because those with intolerant outlooks would have a moral view as
good as that of their opponents.
Cultural relativists fare a bit better here. They will deny that everyone’s moral views are
equally plausible. But when it comes to evaluating the basic codes of each society,
relativists must allow that every code is equally good. This sounds egalitarian and open-
minded, but what it means in practice is that social codes that treat women or ethnic
minorities as property are just as morally attractive as those that don’t. that’s not an easy
thing to accept.
Questioning Our Own Commitments
But what about the situations where I want to know whether my commitments are
worthwhile? In these cases, I know what I like, but am still up in the air about its value.
This sort of puzzlement seems to make sense. But if subjectivism is true, this cannot
make sense, since my approvals and disapprovals are the ultimate test of right and
wrong.
The same sort of problem faces cultural relativism. There is no room in this theory to
second-guess the guiding ideals of one’s own society, since (by definition) they are the
correct moral standards of that society. And yet it seems to make sense to ask whether
the basic principles of one’s society are morally acceptable.
Moral Progress
, It seems that both individuals and societies can make moral progress. But I am thinking
here of progress in our moral beliefs. This occurs when more of them are true and, in
particular, when our most fundamental beliefs change for the better. The problem for
relativism and subjectivism is that it can’t make sense of the most basic kind of moral
progress. If a person’s or a society’s deepest beliefs are true by definition, then they
cannot change for the better. They can change, of course. But no such change would
mark moral improvement.
To measure moral progress, you need a standard. In ethics, that standard is the ultimate
moral rule (or rules, if we are pluralists). If subjectivism is correct, that ultimate rule is
personal opinion. If relativism is correct, that ultimate rule is given by a society’s basic
ideals. And if relativism is correct, different moral codes are not better or worse than one
another. They are morally equivalent. This Is difficult to believe, because a change of
heart of for example a criminal does not mark moral progress.
Ethical Subjectivism and the Problem of Contradiction
A contradiction occurs when a statement is said to be both true and false at the same
time. It looks like subjectivism lead to contradiction. We can see this by considering its
test of truth and falsity:
(S) A moral judgment is true if it accurately reports one’s feelings or commitments,
and is false otherwise.
If (S) is correct, then people on opposite sides of moral debate are both saying something
true. We can summarize the worry in the Contradiction Problem for Subjectivism:
1. Any theory that generates contradictions is false.
2. Ethical subjectivism generates contradictions.
3. Therefore, ethical subjectivism is false.
Premise 1 is definitely true. So subjectivists have to find a way to attack 2. There is a
subjectivist strategy for avoiding contradiction, but is has its costs. The solution implies
that we usually don’t mean what we say in our moral debates. For example, when you
say the death penalty is wrong, you mean: the death penalty is wrong, according to me.
Just like that, the contradictions disappear.
Here are the costs. First, subjectivists have to accuse nearly everyone of
misunderstanding their own moral claims. And second, such a view eliminates the
possibility of moral disagreement. To illustrate the first problem, consider the
conversation on page 299.
My reply is unintelligible, since it assumes that moral talk is about something other than
my own commitments. The second problem is even more serious. Subjectivism is unable
to explain the existence of moral disagreement. But on this line, moral debates that seem
to involve intense disagreement become something completely different. In fact, it now
becomes impossible for people to morally disagree with one another. To see this, look at
the example on page 300.
If all that moral judgments do is report people’s outlooks, then there is no way to morally
disagree with anyone who is speaking sincerely. But that seems plainly wrong. In short,
subjectivism faces a dilemma. If we take moral claims at face value, then subjectivism
generates contradictions, and so it must be false. If we reinterpret all moral claims to be
focused on our attitudes, then the contradictions disappear, but so, too, does moral
disagreement.
Cultural Relativism and the Problem of Contradiction
Cultural relativism faces the same dilemma. It says that:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mlmvanloon. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.20. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53022 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now