Melville Herskovits Flashcards
Dahomey Amazons
- Initially, many of them were prisoners forced to join the military to make their appearance larger
- Wealth was largely a matter of the number of people attached to an individual or family
- Women included in the military to show m=numbers
- Male head of the family (A bride would bring along their slaves)
Moral Status of Poligomy
Problem: The assumed values of one culture can also (and can often do) conflict with the assumed values of another culture
Question: Are moral judgments about objective values or values relative to culture?
Blank?
Moral Relativism
I
- Moral facts/truths depend on what values a culture assumes.
- What is ‘legal’ depends on what sets of laws are binding on you
II
- “Right” means “right for Culture X”
- “Normal” means
III
- Are mistakes possible?
- An individual in a particular evaluative (moral) judgment can be contrary to the individual’s own culture’s values
- A culture creates value
- Each culture, itself, cannot be correct or incorrect
Herskovits Philosophical stance on Morality
- Why we should accept moral-cultural relativism
- Both of the following claims putatively (generally considered) true
I - “Polygamy is morally correct for the Dahomey”
II - “Polygamy is morally incorrect for the Americans”
Herskovits thinks:
- that these empirical claims are true
- We should be tolerant of other culture’s values
Toleration: We should be tolerant of other culture’s values. And it is wrong to interfere with other culture’s practices
Problems:
Bernard Williams
- Self-defeating argument
- Cultural/moral relativism states that all moral truths or facts are relative
Toleration: - Toleration itself is a moral claim
- So: either, toleration is objectively true and thus relativism is false or we have a circular justification (toleration is correct because our culture accepts toleration as a value)
Implausible Implications
Let’s think of the case of Slavery (Atlantic Slave Trade):
- American culture previously accepted slavery as morally acceptable
- American culture no longer accepts slavery as morally acceptable
- If moral relativism is true, then the fact is that Americans didn’t make a mistake before. We cannot explain the possibility of their moral mistake.
Types of Metaethical Positions:
I. Ethical Objectivism
I. Ethical Objectivism:
Ethical theories or views that defend the existence of moral facts or truths
- A form of realism: there are independent moral facts or truths and properties that our moral judgments are about
- A form or cognitivism: Moral Claims have a truth-value – an be true or false
Naturalist Versions
- Moral Facts or truths are natural facts or truths about us or state of affairs
- We can determine moral facts or truths y the way of empirical investigation
- E.g. Utilitarianism: “The goof” (i.e. Utility, overall happiness) is ultimately understood in terms of natural concepts - pleasure and pain
(Non-Naturalist) Rationalist Versions:
- Moral Facts or truths are non-natural facts or truths about is or states of affairs
- We can access moral facts or truths only by way of rational intuition
- E.g. Kant’s view: “the good” is the good will, which acts on motive of duty- from recognition and respect of a rational law
Types of Metaethical Positions:
II. Moral Relativism
II. Moral Relativism
Ethical theories or views that defend the existence of moral facts or truths
- A form of anti-realism - There are no independent moral facts or truths. There are only moral ‘facts’ or ‘truths’ that are relative to something
- A form of cognitivism: Moral claims or judgements do have a truth-value, but they are ‘true’ or ‘false’ only in relation to some relativized standards
Subjectivist Versions
- Moral facts or truths are relative to an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and held values (e.g. Hedonistic Egosim)
Cultural Relativist Versions
- Moral Facts or truths are relative to a group’s attitudes, beliefs, and held values (e.g. Herskovits’ view)
Types of Metaethical Positions:
III. Expressivism
III. Expressivism:
Ethical theories or views that argue there are no moral facts or truths at all
- a form of ant-realism: No moral facts or truths (independent or relative)
- a form of non-cognitivism: Moral sentences or utterances are not propositions, they are not beliefs or judgements at all; and so, they are neither true nor false
Emotivism (precursor to expressivist theories)
- Defends a semantic thesis about our moral sentences (i.e. “murder is wrong”) That there are ways to express feelings; they are emotive (e.g. Ayer’s View)
Types of Metaethical Positions:
IV. Nihilism
IV. Nihilism:
Ethical theories or views that argue there are no moral facts or truths at all
- A form of anti-realism: no moral facts or truths
- A form of cognitivism: Moral sentences are propositions and so are truth-apt
Error-Theory
- All (first-order) moral claims or judgments are false (e.g. Mackie’s view)
Which moral issue does Herskovits focus on and consider?
Moral Cultural Relativism
What sort of general ethical position does Herskovits defend in regard to the status of moral truths?
Herskovits defends the cultural/moral relativism position which states that all mortal truths or facts are relative
What is the central claim Herskovits relies on to defend that general ethical position?
- Values are culturally defined basic evaluations of good & bad
- He argues for Toleration
Are mistakes in moral judgment possible? If so, how so?
According to Moral Relativism:
Mistakes in moral judgment are possible by individuals but a culture, itself, cannot be correct or incorrect in the basic values it holds.
What is problematic with his defense of his preferred ethical position?
- Cultural/Moral Relativism states that all moral truths or facts are relative. Toleration itself is a moral claim.
- So either toleration is objectively true and, thus, relativism is false
- Or, we have a circular justification- toleration is correct because our culture accepts toleration as a value
