Ethics

A Contemporary Introduction

Harry J. Gensler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134731183
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Ethics introduces the issues and controversies of contemporary moral philosophy to undergraduate students who have already done an introductory course in philosophy. It will help students to think more clearly about how to form their moral beliefs in the wisest and most rational way. The basic approaches to metaethics and normative ethics are related to specific issues, particularly those of racism, education, and abortion. Written in a clear and concise way by an experienced textbook author, Ethics will also be of interest to the general reader.
Unique features of the textbook:
* boxed key ideas
* Glossary of philosophical terms
* Chapter summaries and study questions
* Annotated further reading and Internet Web resources
There is an associated website for teachers and students at www.routledge.com/routledge/philosophy/cip/ethics.htm

CHAPTER 1

Cultural Relativism

1.1 Ima Relativist

1.2 Objections to CR

1.3 Moral diversity

1.4 Objective values

1.5 Social science

1.6 Chapter summary

1.7 Study questions

1.8 For further study

CHAPTER 1

Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism (CR):

“Good” means “socially approved.”

Pick out your moral principles by following what your society approves of.

Cultural relativism (CR) says that good and bad are relative to culture. What is “good” is what is “socially approved” in a given culture. Our moral principles describe social conventions and must be based on the norms of our society.

We’ll begin by listening to the fictional Ima Relativist explain her belief in cultural relativism. As you read this and similar accounts, reflect on how plausible you find the view and how well it harmonizes with your own thinking. After listening to Ima, we’ll consider various objections to CR.

1.1 Ima Relativist

My name is Ima Relativist. I’ve embraced cultural relativism as I’ve come to appreciate the deeply cultural basis for morality.

I was brought up to believe that morality is about objective facts. Just as snow is white, so also infanticide is wrong. But attitudes vary with time and place. The norms that I was taught are the norms of my own society; other societies have different ones. Morality is a cultural construct. Just as societies create different styles of food and clothing, so too they create different moral codes. I’ve learned about these in my anthropology class and experienced them as an exchange student in Mexico.

Consider my belief that infanticide is wrong. I was taught this as if it were an objective standard. But it isn’t; it’s just what my society holds. When I say “Infanticide is wrong,” this just means that my society disapproves of it. For the ancient Romans, on the other hand, infanticide was all right. There’s no sense in asking which side here is “correct.” Their view is true relative to their culture, and our view is true relative to ours. There are no objective truths about right or wrong. When we claim otherwise, we’re just imposing our culturally taught attitudes as the “objective truth.”

“Wrong” is a relative term. Let me explain what this means. Something isn’t “to the left” absolutely, but only “to the left of” this or that. Similarly, something isn’t “wrong” absolutely, but only “wrong in” this or that society. Infanticide might be wrong in one society but right in another.

We can express CR most clearly as a definition: “X is good” means “The majority (of the society in question) approves of X.” Other moral terms, like “bad” and “right,” can be defined in a similar way. Note the reference to a specific society. Unless otherwise specified, the society in question is that of the person making the judgment. When I say “Hitler acted wrongly,” I mean “according to the standards of my society.”

The myth of objectivity says that things can be good or bad “absolutely” — not relative to this or that culture. But how can we know what is good or bad absolutely? How can we argue about this without just presupposing the standards of our own society? People who speak of good or bad absolutely are absolutizing the norms of their own society. They take the norms that they were taught to be objective facts. Such people need to study anthropology, or to live for a time in another culture.

As I’ve come to believe in cultural relativism, I’ve grown in my acceptance of other cultures. Like many exchange students, I used to have this “we’re right and they’re wrong” attitude. I struggled against this. I came to realize that the other side isn’t “wrong” but just “different.” We have to see others from their point of view; if we criticize them, we’re just imposing the standards of our own society. We cultural relativists are more tolerant.

Through cultural relativism I’ve also come to be more accepting of the norms of my own society. CR gives a basis for a common morality within a culture — a democratic basis that pools everyone’s ideas and insures that the norms have wide support. So I can feel solidarity with my own people, even though other groups have different values.

---

Before going to Section 1.2, reflect on your initial reaction to cultural relativism. What do you like or dislike about the view? Do you have any objections?

---

1.2 Objections to CR

Ima has given us a clear formulation of an approach that many find attractive. She’s thought a lot about morality, and we can learn from her. Yet I’m convinced that her basic perspective on morality is wrong. Ima will likely come to agree as she gets clearer in her thinking.

Let me point out the biggest problem. CR forces us to conform to society’s norms — or else we contradict ourselves. If “good” and “socially approved” meant the same thing, then whatever was one would have to be the other. So this reasoning would be valid:

Such and such is socially approved.

∴Such and such is good.

If CR were true, then we couldn’t consistently disagree with the values of our society. But this is an absurd result. We surely can consistently disagree with the values of our society. We can consistently affirm that something is “socially approved” but deny that it is “good.” This would be impossible if CR were true.

Ima could bite the bullet (accept the implausible consequence), and say that it is self-contradictory to disagree morally with the majority. But this would be a difficult bullet for her to bite. She’d have to hold that civil rights leaders contradicted themselves when they disagreed with accepted views on segregation. And she’d have to accept the majority view on all moral issues — even if she sees that the majority is ignorant.

Suppose that Ima learned that most people in her society approve of displaying intolerance and ridicule toward people of other cultures. She’d then have to conclude that such intolerance is good (even though this goes against her new insights):

Intolerance is socially approved.

∴Intolerance is good.

She’d have to either accept the conclusion (that intolerance is good) or else reject cultural relativism. Consistency would require that she change at least one of her views.

Here’s a bigger bullet for Ima to bite. Imagine that Ima meets a figure skater named Lika Rebel, who is on tour from a Nazi country. In Lika’s homeland, Jews and critics of the government are put in concentration camps. The majority of the people, since they are kept misinformed, support these policies. Lika dissents. She says that these policies are supported by the majority but are wrong. If Ima applied CR to this case, she’d have to say something like this to Lika:

Lika, your word “good” refers to what is approved in your culture. Since your culture approves of racism and oppression, you must accept that these are good. You can’t think otherwise. The minority view is always wrong — since what is “good” is by definition what the majority approves.

CR is intolerant toward minority views (which are automatically wrong) and would force Lika to accept racism and oppression as good. These results follow from CR’s definition of “good” as “socially approved.” Once Ima sees these results, she’ll likely give up CR.

Racism is a good test case for ethical views. A satisfying view should give some way to attack racist actions. CR fails at this, since it holds that racist actions are good in a society if they’re socially approved. If Lika followed CR, she’d have to agree with a racist majority, even if they’re misinformed and ignorant. CR is very unsatisfying here.

Moral education gives another test case for ethical views. If we accepted CR, how would we bring up our children to think about morality? We’d teach them to think and live by the norms of their society — whatever these were. We’d teach conformity. We’d teach that these are examples of correct reasoning:

•“My society approves of A, so A is good.”

•“My peer-group society approves of getting drunk on Friday night and then driving home, so this is good.”

•“My Nazi society approves of racism, so racism is good.”

CR would make us uncritical about the norms of our society. These norms can’t be in error — even if they come from stupidity and ignorance. Likewise, the norms of another society (even Likâ s Nazi homeland) can’t be in error or be criticized. Thus CR goes against the critical spirit that characterizes philosophy.

1.3 Moral diversity

CR sees the world as neatly divided into distinct societies. Each one has little or no moral disagreement, since the majority view determines what is right or wrong in that society. But the world isn’t like that. Instead, the world is a confusing mixture of overlapping societies and groups; and individuals don’t necessarily follow the majority view.

CR ignores the subgroup problem. We all belong to overlapping groups. I’m part of a specific nation, state, city, and neighborhood. And I’m also part of various family, professional, religious, and peer groups. These groups often have conflicting values. According to CR, when I say “Racism is wrong” I mean “My society disapproves of racism.” But which society does this refer to? Maybe most in my national and religious societies disapprove of racism, while most in my professional and family societies approve of it. CR could give us clear guidance only if we belonged to just one society. But the world is more complicated than that. We’re all multicultural to some extent.

CR doesn’t try to establish common norms between societies. As technology shrinks the planet, moral disputes between societies become more important. Nation A approves of equal rights for women (...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Cultural Relativism
• Chapter 2: Subjectivism
• Chapter 3: Supernaturalism
• Chapter 4: Intuitionism
• Chapter 5: Emotivism
• Chapter 6: Prescriptivism
• Chapter 7: Consistency
• Chapter 8: The Golden Rule
• Chapter 9: Moral Rationality
• Chapter 10: Consequentialism
• Chapter 11: Nonconsequentialism
• Chapter 12: Synthesis Chapter
• Appendix: Computer Exercises
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index