central Metaethics
The questions What is the nature of morality? Are moral claims true or false in some absolute sense? Or is it morality somehow relative?
Relativism
Familiar to hear that morality is relative. E.g., "Polygamy can't be absolutely immoral because there are some cultures that practice adultery. So, in our culture polygamy is immoral, but in other cultures it isn't."
3 claims
1. Descriptive relativism: people have different moral views 2. Meta-ethical relativism: the truth of moral claims is not absolute (contrast with mathematical claims) 3. Normative relativism: the morally correct action depends on the prevailing morality
If a culture forbids doing X, then a member of that culture shouldn't do X. Rather, the truth of moral claims is relative to a culture Anthropological data shows cross-cultural diversity
Different groups...
All of these questions can be raised concerning any group or even an individual Descriptive: different individuals have different moral values Metaethical: the truth of a moral claim is relative to the individual's convictions Normative: the morally correct action depends on the individual's moral values.
Getting into the debate
Can there be fundamental ethical disagreement? Or is there always a right answer when it comes to morality Richard Brandt's view is that where there is FED, there is no fact of the matter about
the true morality. If there is fundamental ethical disagreement concerning some action, such that two groups disagree fundamentally about whether the action is wrong, then there is no absolute truth concerning the wrongness of the action.
Complication
Facts vs. values:
To show that two people or cultures have a fundamental ethical disagreement, one would have to show that there is agreement about all the facts.
In some tribes, it's regarded as permissible to eat body parts of recently deceased relatives. Yuck.
Any moral disputes in our culture that turn on disagreement about facts? Brandt thinks that some moral values are universal, and others exhibit fundamental disagreement.
Anthropology
Every culture that has been studied has prohibitions against:
Murder Rape Theft
Disagreement about what counts as rape and murder
In group / out group
Philosopher as Anthropologist
In the 1950s, Brandt came to the Southwest to study the Hopi.
FED
[Hopi children] sometimes catch birds and make "pets" of them. They may be tied to a string, to be taken out and "played" with. This play is rough, and birds seldom survive long. [According to one informant:] "Sometimes they get tired and die. Nobody
objects to this." (Brandt 1954: 213)
Checking for differences in facts?
Do birds feel pain? Do birds get some reward in birdy heaven?
No Yes
Brandt concludes that there can be fundamental ethical disagreement since "groups do sometimes make divergent appraisals when they have identical beliefs about the objects."
Are there examples within our culture of FED?
Back to philosophy: Brandt's argument for metaethical relativism
1. If there is fundamental ethical disagreement concerning some action, such that two groups disagree fundamentally about whether the action is wrong, then there is no absolute truth concerning the moral wrongness of the action. 2. There is fundamental ethical disagreement about cruelty to animals. C. There is no absolute truth about whether cruelty to animals is morally wrong.
If we apply the argument to the case at hand (animal cruelty), we get the conclusion:
Being cruel to birds is not absolutely wrong or absolutely permissible
Recall distinction between descriptive and metaethical relativism Descriptive claim: there is fundamental disagreement about the
wrongness of torturing birds. That's an anthropological claim. Metaethical claim: there is no absolute truth about the wrongness of torturing That's birds. a philosophical claim.
Simplified argument form
Cultures disagree about whether it's wrong to torture birds C. There is no absolute truth about whether it's wrong to torture birds
This argument tacitly depends on the complicated premise we saw before: 1. If there is fundamental ethical disagreement concerning some action, such that two groups disagree fundamentally about whether the action is wrong, then there is no absolute truth concerning the moral wrongness of the action.
Back to the simple argument
Cultures disagree about whether it's wrong to torture birds C. There is no absolute truth about whether it's wrong to torture birds
Is it fair to draw that conclusion from disagreement?
Parity of reasoning
Cultures disagree about whether the earth is flat. C. There is no absolute truth about whether the earth is flat. Good argument? NO!!!
What is needed to
make the argument work...
Might feel like there's still something to Brandt's argument. The key is to show that there's some difference between the moral case and the flat earth case. Of course, it won't do simply to say, "but this one's about morality." Need some principled difference between the cases.
Knowability
1. No one is in a position to say with certainty that an action is immoral (which distinguishes the moral case from the flat earth case). C. There's no absolute truth about whether an action is immoral. Goldbach's conjecture The move from unknowability (epistemic openness) to meta-ethical relativism is unfounded.
No convincing argument yet
Summary so far: Even if there is fundamental disagreement between cultures, that by itself doesn't show that the moral claims aren't absolutely true or false Even if there is no way for us to know the truth about morality, that still doesn't show that the moral claims aren't absolutely true or false.
Argument against relativism
James Rachels (1941-2003) Elements of Moral Philosophy
Basic argument
1. If relativism is true, then the behavior other cultures condone can't be immoral. 2. Clearly many cultures have done immoral things that they thought were moral. C. Relativism is false. How's that?
Appalling actions
1. If relativism is true, then the behavior other cultures condone can't be immoral.
2. Hitler thought it morally appropriate to kill Jews, but it was immoral. C. Relativism is false. Other examples for #2: slavery, female circumcision
Relativism says that even if slavery is wrong for us (and wrong for the slaves), it was right for the people who practiced it. Is there any way a relativist might respond to this?
Argument from moral progress 1. If moral relativism is true, a society cannot show moral progress. 2. Many societies do show moral progress. C. Moral relativism is false. Argument from moral progress
If moral relativism is true, a society cannot show moral progress.
because the only yard stick for morality is the culture's standards
Many societies do show moral progress.
treatment of women
C. Moral relativism is false.
Argument for moral absolutism?
While descriptive relativism is true about some ethical principles, it is not true about other ethical principles (e.g. the wrongness of murder). Even Brandt agrees with this. Can we thereby generate an argument for ethical absolutism? against relativism?
If it's universally agreed that X is immoral, then it is absolutely true that X is immoral. It's universally agreed that murder is immoral. It is absolutely true that murder is immoral Any problems with this argument? Flat earth
Lessons from cultural relativism
Even Rachels, who rejects metaethical relativism, thinks that descriptive cultural relativism is instructive. Teaches us to 1. be critical (i.e. self reflective) of our moral codes 2. recognize that some of these things really are culturally relative -- cutlery; eating with hands 3. be open minded