Moral Relativism

1
Moral RelativismMoral Objectivism
2
Moral Relativism

• This is a view held by Ruth Benedict, Melville
  Herskovits, and others.
• When we observe a variety of cultures, we see
  different values and practices.
• Therefore, what is right is purely dependent upon
  our culture.
• There is no objective way to say any act is right
  or wrong.

3
The Claim of Moral Objectivism

• Pojman disagrees he sees flaws in the claims of
  moral relativists, and he makes claims that there
  are some objective moral values.
• Note We need to distinguish in our minds the
  difference between a person as bad because he/she
  does something, and asserting that the act is
  good or bad. For example, we would ordinarily not
  judge a16-month old as bad who tries to poke a
  stick into his mothers eye, but we would almost
  certainly try to teach the child that the act is
  not something he/she should do.

4
Pojmans Counter-Arguments

• 1) Just because cultures are different (diversity
  theory), that does not mean they should be
  different (dependency theory).
• 2) There is no logical and precise way to decide
  what is a culture. Is it a nation, church, state,
  family, geographical location, etc.? Why not one
  person?
• 3) Polls show most Americans approve birth
  control and capital punishment, but Catholics do
  not. Which culture trumps the others?

5
Pojmans Counter-Arguments

• 4) Herskovits argues for moral relativism, but
  then contradicts himself by saying tolerance is
  the one value that should be universal. If a
  culture says tolerance is wrong, moral
  relativists must say that is okay.
• 5) Moral relativism implies that reformers are
  always wrong, e.g., Christ was wrong in
  challenging traditional Jewish views, we were
  wrong to free the slaves and let women vote.

6
Pojmans Counter-Arguments

• 6) Perhaps diverse moral practices have an
  underlying similarity, e.g., cultures that oppose
  capital punishment and those that favor it both
  say they hold their view because life is valuable
  and sacred.
• 7) Although most of us do have tolerance for many
  different moral practices, we generally agree
  that it is objectively wrong for someone to kill
  an innocent person against his or her will. If
  there is, in fact, one objective moral value,
  then moral relativism is not correct.

7
Pojmans Counter-Arguments

• 8) We have no difficulty asserting that other
  cultures can be wrong about scientific facts.
  Isnt it a logical conclusion that cultures,
  including our own, can be wrong about moral
  claims? Isnt it possible, for example, that the
  practice of slavery was objectively not as good
  as the moral practice of treating all humans
  equally.

8
Pojmans Arguments for a Limited Moral Objectivism

• Pojman first claims that It is morally wrong to
  torture people for the fun of it is an
  objectively true principle. He claims it makes
  more sense to say that a culture that holds the
  opposing view is wrong or irrational than to say
  torturing people for fun is morally good if the
  culture says it is.

9
Pojmans Arguments for a Limited Moral Objectivism

• Moral goodness has something to do with the
  ameliorating of suffering, the resolution of
  conflict, and the promotion of human
  flourishing. (187)

10
Pojmans Arguments for a Limited Moral Objectivism

• Moral principles are functions of human needs
  and interests . . . .
• Some moral principles will promote human
  interests and meet human needs better than
  others.
• Those moral principles that meet human needs
  better are objectively valid.
• . . . There is an objectively valid set of
  moral principles. (185)

11
Pojmans Arguments for a Limited Moral Objectivism

• The claim that there objective moral values does
  not require or depend on a belief in God or a
  religion.
• There may be competing sets of proposed objective
  moral principles.
• The objective moral principles may not be real,
  that is, they may not have a separate existence
  apart from human needs, and they may not be
  absolute.