[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.That’s the theory we’re going todiscuss here.74TLFeBOOKETHICAL THEORY75WHY CAN’T WE ALL BE RIGHT?THE DILEMMA OF RELATIVISMBefore we get started on our exploration of ethical theory, we must first an-swer a very big question: Do we have the right to sit in judgment on otherpeople? This question is very much at the heart of a major moral dilemmatoday—the dilemma of relativism.Relativism asserts that moral standards are relative to something else:who you are, the society in which you live, or your cultural predisposition.For example, we can claim that we cannot judge what another society (or amember of that society) is doing because they are governed by the rules oftheir society, not ours.This is called cultural relativism.Cultural relativism suggest that there are no independent standards bywhich to judge correct or incorrect actions because all such standards aregroup- or culture-bound.Since different societies have different moralcodes, there can be no objective standard separate from society by whichto judge these codes.All moral standards are, thus, subjective.This meansthat the moral code of our own society has no special status either (exceptto govern internally).Under this concept, the United States has no moraljustification for telling the People’s Republic of China that it is violating hu-man rights in its country.According to cultural relativism, human rights is asubjective concept that may or may not cross cultural boundaries intact.In addition, cultural relativism claims that there are no moral truths inethics that hold for all people at all times.Morality is merely the constructof a specific society’s norms at any given time.It is the moral code of a soci-ety that determines what is right within that society.Therefore, we have noauthority by which to judge the conduct of people in other societies.Whatwe need, instead, is to become more tolerant of the practices of other cul-tures.If we were to take cultural relativism seriously, no action deemed ac-ceptable by a given society could be called morally wrong.No society couldclaim that its conduct was morally superior to another.In fact, the only ac-tions we could decide on would be those of our own society.1SUBJECTIVISMAt the individual level, relativism becomes what is known as ethical subjec-tivism.Ethical subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.There is no right or wrong, only expres-11James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), pp.15–23.TLFeBOOK76CHAPTER 4sions of our feelings.Therefore, we can’t judge another individual’s actionsor beliefs as being wrong or right since our judgments are merely based onopinion and nothing else.Here’s the kind of argument ethical subjectivismboils down to:“Using sex to sell products is morally acceptable.” This simply means I approveof it, nothing more.“Using sex to sell products is morally unacceptable.” This simply means I dis-approve of it, nothing more.Using sex to sell products is neither wrong nor right.The practice is simplya choice based on opinion.The guiding principle of subjectivism is basedon the perennial demand “Show me the rule.”Like relativism, subjectivism assumes that there are no objective truths.Thus, there are no such things as moral “facts,” only our attitudes aboutmorality.If there is no objective truth in morality, if right and wrong areonly matters of opinion, and if opinions vary from culture to culture (andfrom group to group), how are we to decide whether an action is right orwrong? Does it follow that just because people and cultures disagree thereis no objective truth?THE TEST OF REASONAccording to philosopher James Rachels, the problem with the basic argu-ment of both relativism and subjectivism is that it assumes only two possi-bilities: (a) There are moral facts in the same way that there are scientific facts, or (b) our “values” are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings—in other words, there are no moral facts.This argumentoverlooks a crucial third possibility, however: Moral truths are truths ofreason.That is, a moral judgment is true if it is backed by better reasonsthan the alternatives.2 Think of accepting ethical subjectivism as an excuse.We don’t usually allow people to do things simply because they feel they’reright.We want reasons.What we have done instead is to develop theories of rightness and obli-gation based on the notion of reason.For example, each person ought to dowhatever will best promote his or her own interests (ethical egoism).Or weought to do whatever will promote the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber (utilitarianism) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.That’s the theory we’re going todiscuss here.74TLFeBOOKETHICAL THEORY75WHY CAN’T WE ALL BE RIGHT?THE DILEMMA OF RELATIVISMBefore we get started on our exploration of ethical theory, we must first an-swer a very big question: Do we have the right to sit in judgment on otherpeople? This question is very much at the heart of a major moral dilemmatoday—the dilemma of relativism.Relativism asserts that moral standards are relative to something else:who you are, the society in which you live, or your cultural predisposition.For example, we can claim that we cannot judge what another society (or amember of that society) is doing because they are governed by the rules oftheir society, not ours.This is called cultural relativism.Cultural relativism suggest that there are no independent standards bywhich to judge correct or incorrect actions because all such standards aregroup- or culture-bound.Since different societies have different moralcodes, there can be no objective standard separate from society by whichto judge these codes.All moral standards are, thus, subjective.This meansthat the moral code of our own society has no special status either (exceptto govern internally).Under this concept, the United States has no moraljustification for telling the People’s Republic of China that it is violating hu-man rights in its country.According to cultural relativism, human rights is asubjective concept that may or may not cross cultural boundaries intact.In addition, cultural relativism claims that there are no moral truths inethics that hold for all people at all times.Morality is merely the constructof a specific society’s norms at any given time.It is the moral code of a soci-ety that determines what is right within that society.Therefore, we have noauthority by which to judge the conduct of people in other societies.Whatwe need, instead, is to become more tolerant of the practices of other cul-tures.If we were to take cultural relativism seriously, no action deemed ac-ceptable by a given society could be called morally wrong.No society couldclaim that its conduct was morally superior to another.In fact, the only ac-tions we could decide on would be those of our own society.1SUBJECTIVISMAt the individual level, relativism becomes what is known as ethical subjec-tivism.Ethical subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more.There is no right or wrong, only expres-11James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), pp.15–23.TLFeBOOK76CHAPTER 4sions of our feelings.Therefore, we can’t judge another individual’s actionsor beliefs as being wrong or right since our judgments are merely based onopinion and nothing else.Here’s the kind of argument ethical subjectivismboils down to:“Using sex to sell products is morally acceptable.” This simply means I approveof it, nothing more.“Using sex to sell products is morally unacceptable.” This simply means I dis-approve of it, nothing more.Using sex to sell products is neither wrong nor right.The practice is simplya choice based on opinion.The guiding principle of subjectivism is basedon the perennial demand “Show me the rule.”Like relativism, subjectivism assumes that there are no objective truths.Thus, there are no such things as moral “facts,” only our attitudes aboutmorality.If there is no objective truth in morality, if right and wrong areonly matters of opinion, and if opinions vary from culture to culture (andfrom group to group), how are we to decide whether an action is right orwrong? Does it follow that just because people and cultures disagree thereis no objective truth?THE TEST OF REASONAccording to philosopher James Rachels, the problem with the basic argu-ment of both relativism and subjectivism is that it assumes only two possi-bilities: (a) There are moral facts in the same way that there are scientific facts, or (b) our “values” are nothing more than the expression of our subjective feelings—in other words, there are no moral facts.This argumentoverlooks a crucial third possibility, however: Moral truths are truths ofreason.That is, a moral judgment is true if it is backed by better reasonsthan the alternatives.2 Think of accepting ethical subjectivism as an excuse.We don’t usually allow people to do things simply because they feel they’reright.We want reasons.What we have done instead is to develop theories of rightness and obli-gation based on the notion of reason.For example, each person ought to dowhatever will best promote his or her own interests (ethical egoism).Or weought to do whatever will promote the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber (utilitarianism) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]