Objections to Moral Relativism | Philosophy

Подписаться 4,7 тыс.

Просмотров 4,5 тыс.

50% 1

A short intro to moral relativism and some objections. Moral relativism is also known as cultural relativism or ethical relativism. Here three objection to moral relativism are explored.
Subscribe! / @letsgetlogical
0:00 Difference between descriptive moral relativism and metaethical moral relativism
2:43 Different kinds of metaethical moral relativism (subjectivism and cultural relativism)
2:53 Is moral relativism (ethical relativism) better than religious moral theory? (Euthyprho problem)
4:43 Is moral relativism (ethical relativism) open-minded and tolerant?
Further Reading
Russ Shafer-Landau, “Ethical Relativism”, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Oxford University Press
James Rachels, “The Challenge of Moral Relativism”, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw Hill
Chris Gowans, Moral Relativism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
#moralrelativismobjections
#ethicalrelativismobjections
#culturalrelativismobjections

Опубликовано:

24 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 26

@tarbucktransom 3 года назад

I absolutely love that you kept Timolin. There's some very excellent rebuttals in here that develop alot on what I usually say to moral relativism.

@LetsGetLogical 3 года назад

Absolutely love that you caught it.

@RickyRollDoesAnimations Месяц назад

Interesting, and very well done. I've never thought of the similarities between moral command theory and relativism. I do have a few questions though. 3:15 On what basis are we assuming that locating dog-kicking's wrongness onto an outside observer of the dog is weird, or as you've seemed to imply, wrong? 4:00 What do we define as, "Good reason?" Because without it defined, I would argue that it's a moot point. 4:14 What I understand is that the latter option, with baseless condemnations, it creates an unsuitable foundation for morality. My question is, Why would a suitable foundation for morality indicate truth? Or in other words, could the latter option, about the baseless condemnations, be true even if they result in a lack of suitable foundations for morality? No, I'm not exactly a moral relativist, btw.

@LetsGetLogical Месяц назад

@RickyRollDoesAnimations Thanks for your thoughtful questions. They are subtle and I can't give subtle replies on YT but here are some quick thoughts: Re 1: You make a good point. But what I say here is not meant as a _proof_ that relativism is false. Locating the wrongness of puppy kicking outside the act itself is something a theory _can_ do. It's just that the move has its costs. For instance, it leaves the outside observer (e.g. God or society) without a _reason_ for judging puppy-kicking to be right or wrong. The judgment would be wholly arbitrary. Because if there were good reasons to think it right or wrong, then _those reasons_ are what make it right or wrong, not the observer's judgment. Re 2: Again, you're right. But in philosophy, _everything_ leads to everything else and you can't chase down every rabbit trail. So you have to just take some things for granted in any given conversation. If we had to settle the nature of _reasons_ before discussing relativism, we'd never get to the discussion of relativism. So for the sake of the argument, we assume that we have a (rough) grasp of what good and bad reasons might look like. I say we don't have to pin down the exact criteria as to what counts as a good reason before knowing that a wholly arbitrary judgment is _not_ a good reason for thinking something is right or wrong. Re 3: Not sure I fully understand you here, but it sounds like you're suggesting something like this: "Okay, maybe morality _really is_ built on an unsuitable foundation." And I agree that's a possibility. I just don't think it's the possibility that enjoys the most rational support. My own view is that moral realism has plenty of rational support in its favor. No, I can't _prove_ that moral realism is true and just like any other philosophical theory it has objections to it that make me pause. Certainty is just not on the table when it comes to philosophy! But as for moral realism, I think it enjoys about as much rational support as any other substantive philosophical thesis.

@darkengine5931 2 года назад

Moral statements seem to function subjectively from my standpoint in that they're subject to both objective reality and subjective values. For example: >> This building is beautiful [Normative] >> This building violates structural engineering principles [Descriptive] Moral sentiments like "X is moral" appear to blend both. Realms of subjectivity are always grounded in objective principles, but what makes them subjective is that there might be an infinite subset of viable possibilities while still observing those principles. There's both a "rightness/correctness" component which can be criticized and a "goodness/idealness" component that might be impossible to criticize without resorting to taste. For example, music requires some form of structure to sound musical to our ears given the objective reality we share as a species (our psychology is tuned to seek out structures and patterns). So music must observe some form of structure to even be considered music and not just noise. That reduces the subset of sound combinations that can qualify as music to a narrow subset, but there's still an infinite number of variations within that narrow subset. I seem to function as both the metaethical realist and metaethical relativist as a result. I think there's an objective foundation governing all of our evaluations which we can iteratively define more accurately as we learn more about the nature of our species, but that doesn't take us all the way to a universal prescription applicable to all humans independent of their subjective properties and their environmental properties on what they ought to do. It does more confidently tell us what they ought not to do. ... just like as in health. There's a subjective component to health in that there might be multiple healthy options (perhaps even equally healthy at times) for a person in terms of things like what they eat, how they should work out, or what medication they should take when diagnosed with a condition depending on their preferences and what types of side effects they're willing to risk and accept. Yet there's also an objective component to health in that we all share constants in our physiology as biological members of the same species.

@Dylansftp 3 года назад

Is moral relativism considered to be a realist view?

@LetsGetLogical 3 года назад

Tough question! As so often is the case in these kinds of questions of classification, it just depends on what exactly you mean by "realism". On the one hand, moral relativists _do_ take moral claims to have truth-value. In other words, moral claims can be evaluated as true or false under moral relativism. On the other hand, the truth and falsity of moral claims is not _objective_ under moral relativism. It is dependent on feelings/beliefs. So do you take "realist" to mean _objective_ ? Then moral relativism is not a realist view. Are you prepared to accept that a realist view may not be objective? Then perhaps it's fair to say moral relativism falls under realism (in that it accepts the existence of true and false moral claims).

@Dylansftp 3 года назад

@@LetsGetLogical Yeah I see what you're saying, if you just take realism to mean moral propositions can be true or false then yes. I guess when I say realism i'm thinking that it has to true mind independently. My next question is, how is realism most commonly used in the literature? Also is there a distinction between antirealism and nihilism? Thanks for the reply

@LetsGetLogical 3 года назад

Typically, moral realism is the position that moral claims can be true or false _plus_ the further commitment that some moral claims are true. (Because notice that you could say moral claims can be true or false but all of them are false. That's called error theory.) Sometimes, however, realism is taken to have the further requirement of _objectivity_ just as you were initially thinking. The literature is not entirely consistent, which is why I gave you a cagey "it depends" answer. 🙂

@Dylansftp 3 года назад

@@LetsGetLogical I see what you're saying but error theorists say all moral claims are necessarily false right? My definition of realist excluded error theory or did I get something wrong?

@theconsciousmovement9669 Год назад

Exacly. Its not that hard to explain and is simple to understand

@trawrtster6097 3 года назад

I think you are misconstruing what moral relativism is to make it easier to disagree or be skeptical about it. Meta-ethical moral relativism is the idea that no one is objectively right or wrong, not the idea that whatever the majority says is "right". There is no objectively true morality, so it is fine for morality (in the sense that whatever we have a general consensus of what is moral or not moral) to change over time. If you disagree with moral relativism, you have to prove that there is indeed objective morality.

@LetsGetLogical 3 года назад

Thanks for watching Trawrtster! Appreciate the comment. I think you're probably right that many people who call themselves moral relativists are really just rejecting the idea of objective moral truth. Fair enough. But if we're classifying moral philolsophical positions carefully, we want to distinguish between the many different ways of rejecting objective moral truth. Relativism is just one way. For instance, there is error theory, which says there is no objective moral truth because all moral claims are false. And then there are non-cognitivists, who say there is no objective moral truth because moral claims are not really expressions of the kind that can be evaluated as true or false. So, yes, being a moral relativist makes one a denier of moral objectivity but denying moral objectivity does not make one a relativist. To be a relativist, you'd need the further claim that moral truths are _relative_ to something. Relative to individuals (ethical subjectivism) or relative to society (cultural relativism).

@trawrtster6097 3 года назад

@@LetsGetLogical Thanks for the reply. I didn't know there were multiple, more specific views on rejecting objective moral truth. I also like how you engage with people in the comments.

@ghostmidas7411 2 года назад

I use to be a moral relativist all yo u need to do is being up the problem with normativity easy fold.

@atruthseeker79 Год назад

Socrates was cross-examing Euthyphro on what piety is and Euthyphro defined it as what is pleasing to the "gods", ie: polytheism... The dialogue could not have taken place the way it did if Euthyphro was defining piety as that which is pleasing the the ONE God ei: monotheism. Certainly what is pleasing to the single God can be used as a successful determination of what is pious. Big difference, so your logic is flawed on that point. I would also say God being the determiner of what is moral, right and wrong is superior to culture determining it because God is above all humanity and His laws apply to everyone. Finding out what His laws are, is: the truth, would be highly beneficial to mankind because we would be more at peace if we lived by the Truth. So where do we find it? We find it in the religious texts ,so if we can determine which religious text is the Truth then we have something stable and objective to live by. Societies and cultures change because humanity is fallible and ever-changing ie: unreliable and unstable.

@LetsGetLogical Год назад

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Amy. I’m not convinced your move from ‘gods’ to ‘God’ makes a difference, however. Does God condemn some act because of its wrong-making features x, y, or z? Then it is x, y, or z that makes the act wrong. On the other hand, if God condemns the act for no reason at all, then the wrongness of the act is arbitrary (and God is acting arbitrarily). Result: an arbitrary foundation of morality. There might be ways theists can get around the Euthyphro dilemma. For instance, Robert Adams has tried to defend a Divine Command theory. But it will take a lot more than just rejecting Greek polytheism.

@atruthseeker79 Год назад

@@LetsGetLogical I don't see where that dilemma is coming from in the Euthyphro dialogue because much of it cross examines how piety can be determined by what is pleasing to the gods when it was known the gods disagreed amongst eachother about what is pious. In monotheism the One God does not contradict Himself or have disagreements with Himself. And so...morality, right and wrong determined by the One God is constant, stable and reliable. That is what I was talking about. I will reread Euthyphro as it has been years since my last reading, to see if I forgot about this other dilemma you are mentioning. I have an answer for this dilemma you mentioned in the next comment.

@atruthseeker79 Год назад

@@LetsGetLogical Answering the dilemma you mentioned from a monotheist point of view. God created us. As our designer he knows everything about us including what we need to do to maintain health and contentment. Like every human designer of every product...the maker knows and provides care instructions so the item lasts and functions the way it was made to function as long as possible. God's laws that tell us what is moral, right and wrong are our instruction manual to staying healthy and getting the best outcomes in life. When we don't follow His commands ie: take care our ourselves using His guidance and knowledge about us, we will experience negative outcomes. For example premarital relations is forbidden in the Torah, Bible and Quran which eliminates the risk of unwanted pregnancies, std's, and protects women from getting used by a man for pleasure only then thrown away with a baby. It also guarantees a man's right to know he is the father when she becomes pregnant. These potential outcomes He is aware of because he designed our nature and knows these are painful bad outcomes and so tells us how to avoid it. In this way nothing God does is arbitrary or outside of His control.

@LetsGetLogical Год назад

@@atruthseeker79 The moral theory you describe here, Amy, is not divine command theory. Notice that in the way you described it above, God is _reporting_ moral truths to us, not creating them by command. To use your example, God commands us not to have pre-marital relations because unwanted pregnancy and STD's are bad. Notice: it's the bad results that make pre-marital relations something to avoid, not merely God's command. On the view you've sketched out, God becomes a perfectly reliable source of knowledge about morality, but not the creator of morality.

@keithhunt5328 2 года назад

In Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, kicking puppies is alright.

@LetsGetLogical 2 года назад

I have not travelled to those areas and so don't know. But let's say you're right. In that case, the best way to put it would be to say: "In the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, _it is generally believed_ that kicking puppies is alright." In other words, that's just a difference in _cultural attitudes_ toward what is right and wrong. Not a difference about what is actually right and wrong. After all, it's not as if puppies don't feel pain and suffering in those areas of the world. It's important to think clearly about these sorts of things. There are areas of the world where roughing up a child is generally considered alright. But that doesn't mean that child abuse _is alright_ in those places of the world. It means the people in those parts of the world have room for improvement in their moral beliefs. Just as we all do.

@al-hassan9200 Год назад

@@LetsGetLogical You mean : Unhealthy and harmful = immoral behaviour!!! Healthy and harmless for humans and animals = good morals!!! WHY???!!! Why do you matter more than a bacteria or a rock?