Moral relativism

Part 2

Two examples of moral diversity (or of something else)

• Circumcision of girls in Africa

– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oTdmGCl5bw

• Russian antigay law

– http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-15-2013/one-crazy-summary---russia-s-anti-gay-propaganda-law

In order for something to be MORAL difference requires that there is genuine difference in estimations regarding what is valuable, what is not that is widely shared in the society.

Proponents of moral relativism

• Has become a prominent topic in Philosophy in the 20th century.

• Supporters of moral relativism include:– In Classical Greek world historian Herodotus and

Protagoras advocated some form of it.

– The Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi also advocated relativism.

– Modern anthropologists, Franz Boaz was among the first of them.

– Postmodern philosophers

• In 1947, on the occasion of the United Nations debate about universal human rights, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement declaring that moral values are relative to cultures and that there is no way of showing that the values of one culture are better than those of another.

Forms of relativism

1. Descriptive moral relativism (DMR) holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral;

2. Meta-ethical moral relativism (MMR) holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong;

3. Normative moral relativism (NMR) holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

• Those who support DMR don’t necessarily support MMR. Those who support DMR and MMR do not necessarily support NMR.

• N.B. Hume’s Law: “No ought from is.”

Is–ought problem• The is–ought problem in meta-ethics as

articulated by Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–76) is that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.

• However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how one can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law and Hume's Guillotine.

The idea of tolerance

• We should not interfere with the actions of persons that are based on moral judgments we reject.

• This is thought to apply especially to relationships between our society and those societies with which we have significant moral disagreements.

Some practices that are not commonly accepted in, say, USA

Examples of such practices

1. Anti gay laws (well, gays are still not equal in USA either)

2. Polygamy

3. Arranged marriages

4. Suicide as a requirement of honor or widowhood

5. Severe punishments for blasphemy or adultery

6. Female circumcision or genital mutilation (as it is variously called)

Question for discussion

• Are these practices based on ignorance or mistake or evil power structures (abuse of, for example, women)?

• Or vice versa, are the opposite practices in USA based on ignorance or mistake?

• Or are they based on real value differences?

Argument against Descriptive Moral Relativism

• The practices mentioned above are not a manifestation of genuine MORAL DIFFERENCES but a results of unfair power structures (and ignorance). – For example, the women are not equal partners in the

decision making process regarding female circumcision.

– Female circumcision is a feature of a male dominated society – a cruel practice that is imposed on women by men.

– Men would not agree to be mutilated to an equal degree.

– Underlying premise here (moral universalism): Equality is the starting point of morality. Any practice or rule that undermines this idea is by definition immoral.

Moral difference or oppression / inequality?

1. Anti gay laws.

2. Polygamy.

3. Arranged marriages.

4. Suicide as a requirement of honor or widowhood.

5. Severe punishments for blasphemy or adultery.

6. Female circumcision or genital mutilation (as it is variously called)

7. Child labor.

8. Slavery.

9. Severe punishment for conversion to another religion or atheism.

10. Severe punishment for belonging to an opposition party.

If oppression, what kind? If value difference, what kind? What value these practices (at least allegedly) protect?

Equality test

• Do all the people involved in the practice have equal say in deciding about these practices?

• Should all people involved in the practice have an equal say?

• Does the majority have the right to do anything they want with the minority (with those who disagree)?

• Does the minority have any “trumps” that should be respected? (like human rights).

• A “value” that protects the interests of one group at the cost of another are not genuine values, they are excuses for exploitation.

Is tolerance possible?

• It can also be argued that it is impossible to tolerate that conflict with one’s own values because that would render those values– Arbitrary: “I just happen to have these values because

I was born into this society. If I were born somewhere else I would have other values.”

– Weak: “I normally stand by my values – but I wouldn’t go so far as to believe that I am right.”

– Practically useless: “I normally stand by values when it is convenient – except when they are tested against some other values.”