The Case for Cultural Diversity

1
The Case for Cultural Diversity

• Or, The Case for and against Ethical Relativism

2
What is morality about?
Importance!

• Good / Bad (value)

Right / Wrong (conduct)
Obligatory / Forbidden (conduct)
Virtue
Punishment
Duty
Honor
Reward
Vice
Fairness
Praise
Justice
Blame
Merit
So on
Desert
Cruelty
Mercy
Forgiveness
Kindness
Vengeance
3
What is "The Case" for Cultural Diversity?

• On the top of page 13 the Book says
• cultures are diverse is
• supported by overwhelming evidence from
  anthropology and ethnography, and that
• This is indisputable.
• Since nothing more is said about diversity, but
  the remainder of the chapter deals with Cultural
  Relativism, the title of chapter one seems wrong
  or a typo.

4
What is "The Case" for Ethical-Cultural
Relativism?

• What is Ethical-Cultural Relativism (ECR)?
• Ethical-Cultural Relativism df Moral rules are
  valid only for the society in which they emerge
  (or are adopted?), and it is the societys
  approval or disapproval that makes something
  right or wrong, respectively.
• ECR is a theory of morality that developed as
  Anthropologists noted the diversity of moral
  practices around the world. Text books suggested
  (and many still do) that disagreement about
  morality around the world shows that no one was
  right or wrong in their moral views moral views
  are cultural.

5
What is "The Case" for Ethical-Cultural
Relativism?

• Were those anthropologists correct?
• Does disagreement about right and wrong imply
  Ethical-Cultural Relativism?
• What, in general, does disagreement imply?

6
What Disagreement Implies

• What is disagreement?
• Disagreement df two or more people assert
  incompatible things, at the same time and in the
  same respect, of one and the same object(s)
• If I say I like chocolate and you say, I
  dont. I like vanilla, do we disagree?
• In one sense of disagree, yes the sense in
  which we fail to have the same taste.
• But in another sense we do not disagree I have
  accurately described one thing (my likes), you
  another thing (your likes) (neither of us need
  be wrong) we have not at the same time disagreed
  in the same respect (my claim was in respect to
  my tastes, yours to your tastes)

7
What Disagreement Implies

• If I were to say, however, that
• Alaska is landlocked,
• and you were to say,
• No, it is not landlocked it has a border on the
  sea,
• we would disagree in a way in which at least one
  of us must be wrong we have said of one thing,
  Alaska, that it has and does not have some
  feature at the same time and in the same respect
• So, if cultures disagree in this latter sense,
  both may be wrong, or perhaps just one is wrong,
  but both cannot be right

8
What do cultures disagree about?

• Is killing always wrong? Some cultures think so,
  while others sanction killing
• those born on Wednesday
• those who dishonor their family
• of wives by their husband for whatever reason he
  sees fit
• those who kill others
• Suicide might be
• condemned
• thought to uphold honor
• be regarded as nothing important
• Is such disagreement in moral practice genuine
  disagreement? It would appear so.

9
What follows from ECR?

• Since it appears that cultures do have genuine
  moral disagreements, lets suppose that
  Ethical-Cultural Relativism is correct. What
  follows?
• Can the UN, say, legitimately tell a given
  culture they are wrong in some moral matter and
  must change?

10
What follows from ECR? (continued)

• If we say no, the UN cannot tell other cultures
  what to do, we lose the UN (what point would the
  UN serve if it couldnt be right about how others
  should behave?).
• If we say yes, the UN can tell other cultures
  what to do, then UN authority is determined by a
  vote and by power the UN becomes a bullying
  institution.

11
Criticisms of ECR Criticism 1

• Cultures seem to be irrelevant to the nature of
  morality
• Is the U.N. a culture or society itself?
• How do we decide?
• Why stop at cultures?
• Why not make the relevant social group the state?
• Why not make it the family?
• Why not make it a gang?

12
Criticism 2 of ECR

• Disagreement among moral rules often hides
  underlying agreement among moral principles.
• We Westerners have the rule Dont kill your
  parents
• Eskimos and some Greenlanders have the rule Kill
  your parents prior to their becoming feeble (the
  reason being, in the afterlife they will need
  their vigor and strength to live well)

• While we disagree with their rule
• Kill parents prior to their becoming feeble
• We agree with their principle
• Honor your parents

13
Criticism 2 (continued)

• The difference between rules is explained by
  differences of opinion about non-moral but
  morally relevant facts.
• What are non-moral but morally relevant facts?
• A morally relevant fact is a non-moral fact that
  can make a difference for whether something is
  right or wrong.
• Allison had cereal this morning (typically a
  morally irrelevant fact, unless she was eating
  cereal she had promised to leave for her sister,
  say)
• Allison tripped me on purpose (typically a
  morally relevant fact, unless she and I are
  playing a game of trip me, trip you)

14
Criticism 2 (continued)

• So much moral disagreement could be about morally
  relevant facts that lead to moral rules or
  practices. For example,
• If we believed in an afterlife that required a
  strong soul when leaving this life, we might
  agree completely with the culture that practices
  parent killing
• If we believed that enemies wed killed in battle
  could haunt and kill us unless we ate their
  hearts, we might eat them just as some
  headhunters do

15
Criticism 2 (continued)

• Disagreement could also be about the relative
  values of standard moral properties

• Kindness
• Generosity
• Integrity
• Honor

• Pleasure
• Aesthetic appreciation
• Personal affection

• Or about whether a given property is a moral
  property at all
• Causing pleasure, or pleasure ???
• Aesthetic appreciation

16
Criticism 2 (continued)

• So Criticism 2 has two parts moral disagreement
  may be due to difference of opinion about
• morally relevant facts, or
• the relative values of standard moral properties

17
Criticism 3 of ECR

• On ECR, moral advance is impossible
• If only societys norms make actions right or
  wrong, then trying to improve society makes no
  sense (look again at the definition of ECR).
• Every violation of a current rule is wrong.
• Suppose your society approves of slavery to
  reject slavery is to disapprove of what is right.

18
Criticism 4 of ECR

• On ECR, moral disagreement within a culture is
  unexplained
• What constitutes right action when there is no
  consensus?
• Look again at the definition
• of ECR

19
Criticism 5 of ECR

• On ECR, we are forced to accept inconsistent
  cultures a culture might value its own
  advantage, even if it involves inconsistency.
• Suppose we take cultural diversity to imply a
  need for tolerancetolerance of a culture with
  slavery, for instanceand they say
• Right! Dont be intolerant!
• Then, however, they punish a neighboring culture
  for, say, its practice of infanticide. The
  slavery culture is intolerant while expecting
  others to tolerate it.
• Can we criticize the slavery culture at least for
  inconsistency? No, if ECR is true. Consistency
  is a value, after all.

20
Criticism 6 of ECR

• Since disagreement implies only one view is
  wrong, individuals in each culture have every
  right to believe theyre right, unless proven to
  be otherwise
• There may be true universal moral standards and
  some cultures just mistakenly disagree with them
• The US had slavery
• South Africa had apartheid
• Nazis had their final solution

21
Virtues of ECR

• Its claim that cultures are diverse is
  indisputable
• It reminds us that our own views may be
  expressions of uncritically accepted traditions
• It encourages toleration that aids in learning