Powerpoint relativism usd
Transcript of Powerpoint relativism usd
Concepts• Reductio ad absurdem argument
• False dichotomy
• Ethical Universalism
• Ethical Relativism
• Reflective Equilibrium
Subjectivism:Truth is relative to
individuals
• The view that…whatever anyone
believes is true.
• Plato: “Protagoras…admitting…that
everybody’s opinion is true, must
acknowledge the truth of his
opponents’ belief about his own
belief, where they think he is wrong.”
Argument against subjectivism
1. Suppose subjectivism were true: If a person believes that P,
then P [assume subjectivism for reductio]
2. x believes that P and y believes that x is wrong in believing
that P, i.e. y believes that not-P [people disagree]
3. P and not-P [by 1 and 2]
4. Subjectivism is false [reducio: given that people disagree,
subjectivism implies a contradiction]
• There are no true universal moral judgments.
• Moral judgments:
– __ is wrong
– __ is right
– __ is obligatory
– __ is good
– __ is bad
– Etc.
Ethical Relativism
False Dichotomy
• The fallacy of false
dichotomy is committed
when the arguer claims that
his conclusion is one of
only two options, when in
fact there are other
possibilities.
• The arguer then goes on to
show that the 'only other
option' is clearly
outrageous, and so his
preferred conclusion must
be embraced.
If the Ten Commandmentsaren’t absolutely true with
no exceptions thenanything goes!
The Sabbath was made for man--not man for the
Sabbath.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them…[Mark 2:23 -27]
Ethical Relativism vs. Ethical Universalism
• Ethical relativists hold that there is no kind of action that is
always, everywhere and for everyone right or wrong.
• Ethical universalists hold that there is some (at least one)
kind of action that is always, everywhere and for everyone right
or wrong.
• This “kind” can be highly abstract!
• Ethical universalists do not claim that every kind of action is
either always right or always wrong!
Kinds of actionsAn action can belong to many different
kinds!
You break your promise to give a madman a gun on Tuesday.
• Promise-breaking
• Breaking a promise when keeping it would have very bad consequences
• Doing something on a Tuesday
• Doing an action that brings about the greatest good for the greatest number
• Doing an action with the intention of preventing someone else from being harmed…
What features of an action are morally relevant?
• We ask: what features of an action are morally relevant?
– Surely not, e.g. the day on which it was done
• We ask: what are the right-making or wrong-making features of actions?
• Every action belongs to many kinds
– Which kinds are morally relevant?
Kinds of actionsAn action can belong to many different
kinds!
Promise-breaking
Promise-breakingwhen keeping the
promise would havevery bad consequences
Kinds of actionsAn action can belong to many different
kinds!
Promise-breaking
Promise-breakingwhen keeping the
promise would havevery bad consequences
Tuesday actions
Kinds of actionsAn action can belong to many different
kinds!
Promise-breaking
Promise-breakingwhen keeping the
promise would havevery bad consequences
Tuesday actions
Actions that bring about thegreatest good for the
greatest number
Kinds of actionsAn action can belong to many different
kinds!
Promise-breaking
Promise-breakingwhen keeping the
promise would havevery bad consequences
Tuesday actions
Actions that bring about thegreatest good for the
greatest number
Actions intended to prevent
others from being harmed
Ethical Universalism• To be a ethical universalist you only have to agree that there is some
kind of action that’s always right or always wrong.
• The relevant kind may be something very general, e.g. “doing
something that brings about the greatest good for the greatest
number.”
23
Ambiguity 1
• When people talk about universalism, some mean a universal rule (thou shalt not kill) and others a universal principle (like love, or respect for others’ feelings, or, as in the previous slide, the good of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
23
Is ethics a game without rules?
• Reflective equilibrium: theory construction in ethics is
comparable to theory construction in science
• We get data--our “moral intuitions” about real and imaginary
cases
• We generalize
• We test our generalizations against further data
• We keep going back and forth until we achieve a “reflective
equilibrium”
A case of easy rescue
What is “harm”? Failing to help in some cases when we don’t actually do harm can be wrong.
Setting a bad example
Even when an action doesn’t directly harm anyone it maystill make others worse off by setting a bad example,establishing a bad precedent or undermining institutionsthat are in the public interest.
Another sample theory: Utilitarianism• Principle: an act is right if it maximizes utility.
• “Utility” is understood as desire-satisfaction,
pleasure or happiness.
• Consider moral intuitions that support the theory.
• Consider those that are go against the theory
(example: the promise to the dead man problem).
• What should we do if intuitions go against the
theory:
– reject the intuitions and keep the theory?
– reject the theory in favour on one that explains
our intuitions?
– modify the theory to accommodate our
intuitions?
Maximizing utility
A good Utilitarian cuts up the body and uses it as fish bait.
The greatest goodfor the greatest number!
The Moral of this Story
• Even if end we agree to disagree, we can
reason about moral issues.
• Ethics is not a game without rules
– It is not merely “subjective”
– It is not just a matter of personal feelings
– It is not something we have to take on faith
“Cultural Relativism” means different things…
T 1. People’s beliefs, attitudes, tastes, etc. are significantly
affected by their culture--and people in different cultures
have very different beliefs, attitudes, tastes, etc.
T 2. Methodological cultural relativism: cultures should be
studied on their own terms.
F 3. Actions are right or wrong to the extent that
they conform or don’t conform to cultural norms.
Cultural Relativism: reflections
• Actions that are wrong may be excusable and people
that do them may not be blameworthy.
• Even if an action is wrong, it doesn’t follow that it
would be right to stop people from doing it.
• Practices that produce good results in one culture
may not produce good results in another, e.g.
polygamy.
Asking these questions assumes a universal standard!
• An ethical universalist may consistently hold that
polygamy is ok in one context but not ok in another.
• Because he may hold that what makes an action
right is something that holds across all cultures . . .
• But that whereas a given kind of action has that right-
making property on one context it doesn’t have that
property in another.
Quine speaks…
Truth, says the cultural
relativist, is culture-bound. But
if it were, then he, within his
own culture, ought to see his
own culture-bound truth as
absolute. He cannot proclaim
cultural relativism without
rising above it, and he cannot
rise
above it without giving it up.
Problems with Cultural Relativism
• Who is my neighbour? (The problem of
overlapping cultures)
• Some practices are just plain wrong
• The paradox of tolerance
The Paradox of Tolerance
• The ethical relativist cannot hold that everyone
everywhere should be tolerant without
contradicting himself!
• If the ethical relativist holds that actions are right
if they conform to cultural norms then he must
hold that people in intolerant societies ought to
be intolerant!
The Moral of the Story
• Relativism isn’t as good as its cracked up to
be: “a little learning is a dangerous thing”.
• Some forms of relativism are logically
problematic.
• We can accommodate our intuitions and
commitments (about tolerance, about not
being dogmatic, etc.) without buying into any
form of relativism.