The Foundations of Morality
The Problem: Is it possible to come up with a moral theory that is absolutely universalizable, independent of social position, race sex, etc.?
What about the Will of God?
Well how would we know what exactly that is. Not only do religions differ from one another, but they often have contradictions and variations within individual faiths.
So then… Can’t we rely on our conscience?
- If one argues that the conscience is God-given then we run into the same problems raised in the previous slide.
- If one does not argue that it is God-given, then one must determine what makes the commands of one’s conscience good.
AUTONOMY
Autonomous moral reasoning critical to ethics.
Glossary:
Moral Realism: There are universal moral truths – even if we have yet to discover them
Moral Pluralism : The theory that there are many moral systems
Ethical Relativism : There is no universal moral standard for right and wrong
Cultural Ethical Relativism : Morality is dependent on collective practice and preference. (Different from just cultural relativism, which is inclusive of other customs, i.e. dress, food, etc.)
Individual Ethical Relativism : Morality is dependent on a person’s own experiences and value systems. So basically, worse.
Moral Isolationism : One cannot understand another culture’s moral system if one is not a member of that culture –cultures are distinct and separable.
Ethical Relativism: The Core Argument
The (P1) What is considered morally right or wrong varies from society to society [diversity premise – cultural relativism/pluralism]
(P2) The Rightness or wrongness of act is determined by the society to which one belongs. [dependency premise – normative claim]
(C) Therefore, it follows that there are no absolute or objective moral principles that apply to all people and at all times.
This theory is claiming etiquette and morality are equally determined by culture.
Relativism
Implicit or explicit agreements: there are no universal morals or values.
There ARE many explicit codes, like codes of conducts (I.e. medical), an agreement or contract.
But these all rely on agreement whereas morality, especially in/for society, is not.
Theists run into problems, here, because their morality is universal; all made by God.
(1)God’s Will would be the same for everyone since he created all. (2) God is good, (3) so anything God wills is good.
There’s a logical problem with this beyond the fact that not everyone is a theist.
How do we know that god is good? We need some criteria external from God for God himself. Either we get circular reasoning or a tautology.
Natural Law Argument – The natural world occurs in a certain way, what is natural is what is right.
Problem number one, everything humans do is natural. Problem number two, Unusual on the other hand is not necessarily negative (i.e. Genius, left handedness, or red hair)
THE PROBLEMs:
(1) It doesn’t just stay within its geographical or even cultural boundaries.
(2) Cultures nor individuals are isolable. There are lots of culture blending, muddling and distinctions. What even counts as culture? One often belongs to more than one culture.
(3) The theory doesn’t do its job – it does not and cannot guarantee tolerance – if no universal moral truths exist then tolerance cannot be universally valued. “… from a relativistic point of view there is no more reason to be tolerant than to be intolerant, and neither stance is objectively morally better than the other.“ (Pojman, Louis P., ed. Ethical Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1989)
(4) The argument often attempts to derive normative claims (how one ought to behave) from descriptive claims (how one does behave).
(5) One cannot decry atrocities.
(6) One can make no sense of moral progress.
Universalism: A Rejection of Ethical Relativism
There’s some sort of universalizable rights; we must coexist with one another as social animals. (i.e. genocide/ethnic cleansing is WRONG)
James Rachels argues that we have certain things in common; and as an example he argues that;
(1) Human infants are helpless and cannot survive if they are not given extensive care for a period of years. (2) If a group did not care for its young, the young would not survive, and the older members of the group would die out. (C) Therefore, any cultural group that continues to exist must care for its young. Infants that are not cared for must be the exception rather than the rule.
Similar reasoning shows that other values must be more or less universal. Two other possible examples of these universal, objective truths are truth telling and prohibitions on murder.
Philopasta 