Final Exam- Relativism Flashcards
o What ethics is.
- Branch of philosophy that deals with human notions of right and wrong
- Everything we buy could have an ethical component- ex: conditions of production, effects on the planet, animal cruelty.
o Moral versus non-moral questions.
o Moral versus non-moral questions.
- Moral dilemmas: concrete case or situation expressed by descriptive statements
-conflict between one’s personal values and principles of right and wrong.
-rooted in one’s own sense of morality
- Moral theories: systems of thoughts based on rules & principles (normative claims)
- provide answers to moral dilemmas.
o Normative versus descriptive claims.
- Normative: tell we ought and ought not do- notions of better and worse
- Descriptive: Asserts something about the world- simply describe without evaluating
Ethical dilemmas versus ethical theories.
- Ethical dilemmas: concrete situations that relate to following established rules, codes, protocols, even when they conflict with one’s personal beliefs or values.
-Involve situations where there are competing obligations or duties - Ethical theories: rules and principles
o Relativism in general – what it is.
- Claim that everything is relative except for itself
- (No notion of absolute truth)- No superior point of view
- Moral values depend on individual’s notions of right and wrong
o Relativism applied to the field of aesthetics: the idea of a beautiful female beauty.
Sandards of beauty differ relatively among cultures
Everyone has a different perception of beauty (someone who looks “beautiful” to one, may not be at their friend’s taste.
o Relativism : the opposite of objectivism.
Objectivism: 1 universal notion of right, wrong, better and worse
- Relativism: Rejects any notion of absolute truth
o The differences among subjectivism, cultural relativism and objectivism.
Subjectivism claims that “we should always do what we personally believe is the morally right to do.” Cultural Relativism, on the other hand, claims that “we should always do what a majority of people in our group- or community- believes is the morally right thing to do”.
o Objectivism: which ethical theories seen this semester belong to this type of ethical approach?
Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology, Virtue ethics & Natural Law Theory
Popular (cultural) relativism: what is it? Define and give an example.
- “We should always do what the majority of people in our group believe is the morally right thing to do.”
Ex: The majority of Hitler’s Nazi Germany believes that executing Jews is the morally right thing to do, then it is the morally right thing to do.
o Subjectivism: what is it? Define and give an example
- “We should always do what we personally believe is the morally right thing to do.”
Ex: If I believe that not attending class is the morally right thing to do, I should not be attending class.
o Strengths and weaknesses of subjectivism.
Strengths: Tolerance, empowering, makes life limitless, gives a sense of authority/autonomy
Weaknesses: Self-oriented, denies possibility of common ground- leading to chaos
Strengths
Tolerance + Seems aligned with the way the world works
4 objections :
Making Anything Right Objection
“If cultural relativism were true, then everything including the most probloematic behaviors could be justified if a majority of people in the group believe it is the morally right thing to do and clearly that is problematic.”
Moral Reformers Objection
“If cultural relativism were true, we must all agree that social reformers are evil because they go against the majority’s opinion and clearly, this is problematic.”
Moral Progress Objection
“If cultural relativism were true, the notion of progression would be seen as absurd- progression relies on notions of good/wrong, better and worse which are objective, clearly, this is makes no sense.”
Social Groups Objection:
“Even if cultural relativism were true, it would still be impractical because it would ask of u to choose a group of identification when us human beings are complex creatures that require numerous groups to identify to and clearly this is problematic.”
Premise 1: A look at different societies reveals widespread differences in particular moral beliefs and practices.
Premise 2: The moral standard that applies in a society is determined by what moral beliefs and practices are widely accepted within that society.
What are their COUNTERARGUMENTS?
1) Sometimes, differences are merely superficial ( example: there are multiple ways of burying bodies after death but every single one reflect on a same principle- respect for the dead.)
2) Majorities are not always right, therefore, we should not always let the majority decide.
Premise 1: Cultural relativism rules out the possibility of our judging a particular society’s moral standard as better or worse than any other; as such, one can say that cultural relativism is a tolerant ethical theory.
Premise 2 : Tolerance is good.
1) Should we really tolerate everything? If so, should we tolerate intolerance? Ex: If a country in which every “different” being had to be killed by approval of a majority of the group, as cultural relativists, we would have to tolerate their intolerance. Cultural relativists should prone tolerance, though (should not invite to tolerance).
2) The statement “tolerance is good” provides us with an objective reality. It implies that tolerance is good regardless of context, traditions and other personal factors. In relativism, EVERYTHING should be relative. There are no such things as objective ideas. This is a paradox. Cultural relativism contradicts itself by using an objective claim as a description to a relativist approach.
Documentary on the SQ and Algonquin women in Val-d’Or: explain how the 4 objections to relativism can be explained with reference to this documentary.
1) Horrific Evil’s Objection: A majority of people in Val d’Or thought that racism was morally acceptable. As cultural relativists, we should consider that the rapists deserve moral praise because they go along the majority and clearly, this is problematic.
2) Moral Reformers Objection: If cultural relativism were true, Carole Marcil would be morally blame worthy for going against the majority in the documentary and clearly, this is problematic.
3) Moral Progression Objection: If cultural relativism were true, we would not be able to say that the situation has “progressed” in Val d’Or ifever the naturally racist event dicussed in the documentary were to cease and clearly, this is problematic.
4) Social Groups Objection: Even if cultural relativism were true, it would be impractical because indigenous people in Val d’Or identify to numerous social groups that clash together at the same time: Women, Val d’Or citizen, Quebecquers that hold different views on the violent matters dicussed in the documentary and clearly this is problematic.
