Transcript Ethical Pluralism and Relativism

Ethical Pluralism and
Relativism
Dr. Ching Wa Wong
City University of Hong Kong
[email protected]
Part 1
Ethical Relativism
Cases to start with
1. Eating the dead:

Ancient Greeks Vs Callatians
2. Eskimo infanticide
3. Stealing in Ik’s culture
Two types of ethical theories
 Ethical absolutism

The claim that there are moral rules which
hold for all persons in all situations, and which
allow no exception .
 Ethical relativism

The claim that there is no objective moral
standard of right and wrong, and that moral
values are relative to a person’s cultural or
individual background, or to a certain situation.
Types of ethical relativism

Cultural ethical relativism:
‘Chinese and westerners have different concepts of
human rights. They should not intervene with each
other’s moral practice.’
2. ‘Polygamy is wrong in western societies but not so in
the Middle East. The ethics of marriage is just a
matter of social norm.’
1.

Individual ethical relativism:
1.
‘A family man would be deeply guilty for committing
adultery. But a sexual libertarian simply finds this an
expression of personal freedom. Just why argue
about its right or wrong?’
Analysis of moral concepts
 Cultural relativism:


‘X is right’ = ‘My society approves of X.’
‘X is wrong’ = ‘My society disapproves of X.’
 Individual relativism:


‘X is right’ = ‘I approve of X.’
‘X is wrong’ = ‘I disapprove of X.
Determinants of moral values:
Cultural relativism
Individual relativism
 Customs
 Social upbringing
 Tradition
 Social status
 Language
 Desire
 Ideology
 Emotion
 Politics
 Personality (trait or type)
 Religion
 Mood
 Feeling
 Genes (?)
Why is cultural relativism more
attractive than individual relativism?
 Anthropological & sociological concerns
 The need for common moral codes within a
nation/culture
 The value of tolerance in international politics
Part 2
Why believe in cultural ethical
relativism?
First argument: the diversity of moral
codes
 Structure of the argument:
Individual cases of moral disagreement
Inductive generalization
Denial of moral objectivity
Illustration (see Rachels, 1995):

Case 1:
1.
2.
The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the
dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was
right to eat the dead.
Therefore, eating the dead is neither
objectively right nor objectively wrong, and is
a matter of opinion.
Illustration

Case 2:
1.
2.
The Eskimos see nothing wrong with
infanticide, whereas Americans believe
infanticide is immoral.
Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively
right nor objectively, and is a matter of opinion.
Illustration

After generalization:
1.
2.
Different cultures have different moral codes.
Therefore, there is no objective ‘truth’ in
morality. Right or wrong are only matters of
opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.
Second argument: moral
uncertainty
 We are not always certain about the truth of
our own moral beliefs.


Example:
I cannot say whether Marxism is the best
political doctrine even if I am a Marxist.
 Just in case that we feel certain that a moral
claim is true, we still can conceive that it is
not objective.
 Therefore, we have no right to say moral
rules are universal or absolute.
Third argument: situational
differences
 We tend to be more tolerant of people’s behaviour
because of their exceptional situations.
 Examples:


It seems less objectionable to eat dogs in the time of
famine.
Killing in the time of war is not always wrong.
 Different cultures have different ‘existential
conditions’.
 Therefore, our moral rules cannot be applied in a
different culture.
Consequences of cultural
relativism
 One cannot criticize the moral practices of
other societies.
 Cultural/social norms become the basis of
moral judgment.
 There is no moral progress.
 We ‘should’ be tolerant to other societies’
moral practices if they do not harm us.
Part 3
Objections to cultural relativism
Problem with relativist reasoning
 Can we conclude that ‘X is so-and-so’ cannot
be true or false simply because people
disagree about the truth of the statement?
 Examples:





The earth is flat.
There is no God.
Aliens exist.
Aristotle was the author of Metaphysics.
The third new Millennium started on 1/1/2000.
Moral practice Vs moral belief:


Seemingly conflicting behaviours can in fact be
motivated by the same moral belief/value.
For example:




Collatians believed that eating their fathers’ was right
because they thought this could preserve their fathers’
souls.
Greeks believed that burning their fathers’ bodies was right
because the mother nature was the best place for dead
persons to go to.
It follows that both their actions were motivated by a
respect to the dead persons.
Their actions are therefore based on the same moral value.
Neutrality and tolerance



Ethical relativism is the claim that there is no moral
principle which is universally applicable.
But it also says that people in whatever culture
should respect others’ moral codes.
As being neutral is neither right nor wrong, why
must we be tolerant of other cultures’ practices?


Example:
If I am a relativist, it is not wrong for my country to
wage war on Islamic countries simply because we
don’t like their religions. Nothing is right or wrong
independent of my countries’ values.
Description Vs prescription
 In making moral judgment, we are not describing
what people think is right, but rather advising them
what action is right to take.
 Compare:


X is the right thing for CW to do = CW thinks X is right
X is the right thing for CW to do = We have good
reason to advise CW to do X.
 Which one is a better interpretation of our concept of
‘right’?
Part 4
An alternative approach to
cultural differences:
Ethical Pluralism
Ethical pluralism
 The claim that there are not just one single good for
human beings, but many.
 The varieties of good may lead to conflicts in values,
but it does not mean that the values are subjective.
 Some values are important only for people of a
certain group, which are recognized but not held by
other people.
 The list of values may include:

Freedom, justice, equality, harmony, solidarity, love,
friendship, fidelity, naturalness, utility, affluence…
An example
 The same principle of universal human rights
can be expressed not only in the idea of
‘individual freedom’ in western societies, but
also in ‘the common’ (公）in China.
 Individual freedom and common interests can
conflict with each other even if both are in
accordance with the same moral principle.
 The best a governor can do is to teach
different groups of people to respect each
others’ values.
Thin morality
 Ethical pluralism allows that there are a few
basic moral principles that all cultures should
follow.
 But beyond these principles, each culture can
have its own value system, provided that it
does not violate the higher moral principles.
 It means that:


Thin morality is the same everywhere.
Thick morality is valid only for people in the
same community.
Application: liberal pluralism
 Liberalism:

the political doctrine which advocates the
values of freedom of thought, the rule of law,
market economy, and limitations on power of
the state.
 Liberal pluralism:

the liberal doctrine which advocates the coflourishing of value-systems in society,
provided that people with different moral
values do not harm each other.
An imagined situation
 Suppose we are in a society with people
coming from different cultures, what can the
government do to deal with their conflicts of
values?
 If the government is completely neutral, it
may endorse the following principle
suggested by John Stuart Mill:
The harm principle
 ‘the only purpose for which
power can be rightfully
exercised over any member
of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent
harm to others.’
 ‘The only part of conduct of
anyone for which he is
amenable to society is that
which concerns others.’
 ‘In the part which merely
concerns himself, his
independence is, of right,
absolute.’
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Remaining questions
 If neutrality is important, it must be the basis of the




thin morality that people from all cultures should
respect.
We may be able to tolerate other people’s different
moral values because we are willing to cooperate
and live together in the same society.
Thus individual relativism can be refuted if people in
the same society share the same political courses.
But can neutrality and tolerance be maintained when
we move to international politics?
Is it necessary that we develop a global community if
we are to reject cultural relativism?