ETHICAL RELATIVISM • Explain the role that culture plays in moral behavior and development • Discuss the theory of ethical relativism • Identify and explain the arguments FOR and AGAINST it • Situate the theory of ethical relativism in the context of Filipino cultural traits and values LET’S AGREE TO DISAGREE! PMS: “Everyone is doing it” Juan has a disagreement with Maria, her girlfriend as to the morality of premarital sex (PMS). The morality of PMS, according to Juan, depends on who sees and engages in it. Juan sees nothing ethically wrong in engaging in PMS since according to him “everyone is doing it”. Is Juan correct? Does the fact that (assuming) “everyone is (really) doing it” make it (PMS) right? Why or why not? CULTURE noun| cul’ture : the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time : a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc. : a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization CULTURE plays a very influential and crucial role in the development and formation of one’s MORAL CHARACTER. SOCIAL SCIENCES: Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. MAJOR AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF CULTURE to MORAL BEHAVIOUR Ethics CULTURE: a major topic for a multidisciplinary discussion One can never truly separate MORALITY from CULTURE. Any discussion of MORALITY that is not rooted with the living concreteness of HUMAN CULTURAL LIFE is simply unrealistic and even absurd. ETHICS or MORALITY is simply defined by one’s CULTURE. QUESTIONS: Is CULTURE all that there is to consider when we talk about MORAL DEVELOPMENT? Is MORALITY simply a matter of CULTURAL INFLUENCES? Is there “something” in one’s MORAL BEHAVIOUR that cannot be totally reduced to CULTURAL FACTORS? ETHICAL RELATIVISM MORAL view/framework/philosophy: MORALITY is mainly, if not totally, dependent on one’s CULTURE. ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM …that ETHICAL VALUES and BELIEFS (as to what is right/good and wrong/bad) are RELATIVE to the time, place, persons, situations that hold them. CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM …that there are NO UNIVERSALLY VALID MORAL PRINCIPLES; …that ALL MORAL VALUES are VALID RELATIVE TO CULTURE or INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM …“whether an ACTION is RIGHT or WRONG DEPENDS on the MORAL NORMS of SOCIETY or the MORAL COMMITMENTS of the INDIVIDUAL, …that NO ABSOLUTE STANDARD EXISTS by which differing rules or commitments can be judged.” CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM …that there are NO VALUES that cut across CULTURAL BOUNDARIES and PEOPLES …that MORALITY depends on a specific SOCIAL or CULTURAL circumstances (traditions, customs, etc.) …what is morally right or wrong varies fundamentally from person to person or culture to culture CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM …what is basically right for an individual or group may be wrong for another …an act or conduct may be both right and wrong at the same time – right in one culture but wrong in another • MORAL SKEPTICISM asserts that there are no valid moral principles at all, or that we cannot know whether there are any MORAL SKEPTICISM = ETHICAL RELATIVISM • MORAL NIHILISM believes that nothing is morally right or wrong. MORAL NIHILISM = ETHICAL RELATIVISM ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT CLAIM: “MORALITY depends on a specific SOCIAL or CULTURAL circumstances (traditions, customs, etc.)” REASON/S: • Throughout history many societies have held beliefs and practices about morality that are strikingly different from our own. • Different societies or culture at least appear to have vastly different moral codes. • People in different societies have different customs and different ideas about right/good and wrong/bad. • There is no transcultural consensus on which actions are right and wrong, even though there is considerable overlapping with regards to this. • Careful study of the cultural practices of different peoples supports the idea that what is and is not behaviorally normal is culturally determined. – Ruth Benedict • Acquaintance with the wide variety of moral beliefs across societies (may) lead us to deny that there is only one correct moral code that applies to and binds all societies. • ETHICAL RELATIVISM = CULTURAL DIVERSITY ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT CLAIM: “What is morally right or wrong varies fundamentally from person to person or culture to culture.” REASON/S: • People should not judge other people from other cultures or societies on the basis of their own moral standards. • Moral code of one’s particular culture has no special status compared with the rest. • No culture has the right to impose its own ethical views and practices on anyone else. Least of all on people in different cultures and traditions • PROMOTE TOLERANCE and RESPECT for moral standpoints different from what one upholds • It entails “intercultural tolerance”. • …Tolerance has always been considered a virtue while taking a superior stance is usually viewed as the height of arrogance if not plain narrow mindedness… • People should become more accepting of moralities of others, no matter how these may be radically different from their own. • People have to see and realize that the other side of the fence is not necessarily wrong. • People have to stop this “we’re right and they’re wrong” attitude and rather view the other as simply “different” • ETHICAL RELATIVISM = TOLERANCE AND RESPECT ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CLAIM: “ETHICAL VALUES and BELIEFS (as to what is right/good and wrong/bad) are RELATIVE to the time, place, persons, situations that hold them.” REASON/S: • Our (moral) values are simply the result of our having been conditioned to behave in a certain way. • We are all had been trained and conditioned to have those feelings beginning when we were still little children usually through parental rearing. • We have been trained and brought up by our parents or elders differently; so we have different moral values and principles… • All of us human beings acquire our moral beliefs by a process of psychological conditioning. • All of us, consciously or unconsciously, have been subjected in one way or the other to some sort of a “psychic manipulation” by our “Significant Others”. • Moral truth is relative to one’s own psychological upbringing, nothing more, nothing less. • ETHICAL RELATIVISM = PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT CLAIM: “Whether an ACTION is RIGHT or WRONG DEPENDS on the MORAL NORMS of SOCIETY or the MORAL COMMITMENTS of the INDIVIDUAL.” REASON/S: • Whatever a society believes to be right is right for that particular society. • What is considered as “good” is what the majority, as the major constitution of a society, approves or acknowledges as good. ….as “bad” is bad. • Morality is simply dependent of what the majority wants or decides. • What is good or bad is reducible to a kind of social contract or a matter of group consensus. • People should conform with and embrace the ethical code of their respective societies or cultures. • As social beings by nature, it is but natural for people to easily affiliate and conform to the accepted ethical standards of the particular group that they belong. • People should be more accepting of their own societal norms and their beliefs gives a good basis for a common morality within a culture. • ETHICAL RELAVISM = CONFORMITY TO A GROUP’S ACCEPTED ETHICAL STANDARDS ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM 5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT CLAIMS: “There is no such thing as objective truth in ethics.” “There are NO UNIVERSALLY VALID MORAL PRINCIPLES.” REASON/S: • There is an undeniable fact of moral dispute occurring between and among groups as well as individuals. • There is a usual experience of people having a great difficulty in knowing what is the “right thing” to do in a particular situation. • We cannot (still) prove which moral opinions are true and which are false. • Ethical disputes seem to be far from being resolved (unlike disputes between scientists). Think of perennial moral issues of euthanasia, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc. • Morality can (never) be proved…. • ETHICAL RELATIVISM = PROVABILITY MORAL CASE ANALYSIS & CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT GANG RAPE as a Form of Tribal Revenge There was once an article in the newspaper in 2005 that reported a sexual assault (gang-rape) done by a group of tribal men somewhere in the African region against a married woman in her 30’s. The group’s action was carried with the blessings of the whole tribe where the group belongs. It was an act of vengeance against another for an offense done by a member of the other tribe on one of its members. After the rape, the woman was made to walk naked in public. This was not just to inflict shame and pain to the woman but to her entire tribe. The “civilized” world’s attention was caught and called the act as “beastly” and “inhuman”. In fact the case was brought to the UN which lambasted the act in the strongest term possible. But is it correct for us to condemn the act as morally wrong knowing that the group acted only on behalf of their own cultural group (as a matter of custom)? Can culture/custom be subject to morality? Why or why not? THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT • Arguing though that cultural “relativism” is an indisputable fact, it does not by itself establish the truth of ethical relativism. • Cultural diversity as a sociological and anthropological fact is in itself neutral to making any value or moral judgment. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT • Cultural diversity does not necessarily deny the objectivity of moral values. • What merely it is saying is that cultures do vary in so many ways. It does not categorically say whose or what culture/s is/are doing and practicing what is right. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT • A product of culture can express objective truths. So too a moral code be a product of culture and yet still express objective truth about how people ought to live. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT • If everything is relative, then the very truth of relativism would also be relative. (In here, the logic of relativism self-destructs) THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT • CULTURAL DIVERSITY = ETHICAL RELATIVISM • CULTURAL DIVERSITY = OBJECTIVE/UNIVERSAL CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT The Face of Muhammad On September 30, 2005, there was this caricature (cartoon) appeared in the culture section of a Danish newspaper Jylland’s Posten (The Jutland Post) entitled “Muhammad ansigt” (The Face of Muhammad) depicting the Prophet Muhammad, with a bomb in his turban with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This sparked a wave of violent mass protests and calls for boycotts of Danish products by Muslims in many parts of the world who felt offended by what they considered as a blasphemy. The Danish Prime Minister Andes Fogh Rasmussen (who described the controversy as “Denmark’s worst international crisis since the Second World War”) refused to give in to the demand. He asserts that the publication is part of the right of self-expression and religious freedom that is embedded in Denmark’s Constitution that has to be respected by all. (Since then, 50 other newspapers from other countries published the caricature.) Is self-expression and religious freedom subject to morality? ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT • While tolerance is definitely a virtue, it cannot be practiced consistently. What if the culture in question does not have toleration as part of its moral code? No basis for criticizing people who are intolerant… Cannot criticize anyone who espouses what they might regard as a brutal practice, like Hitler’s genocidal policy during the WW2. ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT • Allowing every individual or group to set their own standard as a gesture of respect and tolerance will most likely lead to eventual conflict and disorder, what more with numerous existing standards. • It is likely that the law of the jungle where “might is always right” prevails. • Tolerance is either not always good or always a virtue. Tolerance should be tempered with a sense of outrage in the face of extreme evil. ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT • TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = ETHICAL RELATIVISM • TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = EVIL • TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = OUTRAGE IN THE FACE OF EVIL CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT Mandy and Britney: Best of Friends But… Mandy befriends somebody who grew up in the States. Her name is Britney. They go along well except that Mandy finds her newly found friend too liberal on her attitude towards sex. Mandy by the way belongs to a very conservative family that values traditional morality especially concerning sex issues. Is one’s upbringing the ultimate basis of morality? Why or why not? Fallacious. Genetic Fallacy Fallacy of misrepresentation THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT • Genetic Fallacy (just because something comes from a dubious source does not necessarily follow that it is false or erroneous) • How one acquires one’s belief does not necessarily undermine its truthfulness or validity. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Even granting the truth of the premise… that we do acquire our moral beliefs by a process like the one psychologists described, that we had been conditioned differently, so we would have different moral beliefs the conclusion that there is no such thing as objective moral truth, does not follow, hence unsound and invalid. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT • The question of how we acquire our beliefs is logically independent of, and separate from, the question of whether there are objective facts to which those beliefs correspond. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT • Fallacy of misrepresentation. • It tries to deceive us into believing that the matter of social conditioning/training is all that there is in the person’s moral or ethical development. • It fails to give due consideration to other, perhaps equally powerful if not more powerful and significant factors that have contributed, in one way or the other, to a greater or lesser extent, to the formation and building of the individual sense of morality. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT • The human person is the creator of his/her values… • One’s moral development or formation, is also a matter of decision, not just condition. …to disregard totally the specific role that our early psychological upbringing played in the formation of our moral values and behavior, is also committing the fallacy of oversimplification. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT • PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING = ETHICAL RELATIVISM • PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING = AN ASPECT OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT DIVORCE: Is it OK if done in the US? Mark, whose parents and brothers and sisters are all living in the US, is a Catholic and is married without kids. His marriage is beset with problems due to irreconcilable differences with Dayanara, his wife for the past 10 years. He wants a divorce. The problem is that there is no divorce here in the Philippines. Our culture considers it as something unacceptable. Mark plans to go and live in the US for good so that he can have a divorce. Can divorce be “right” if it’s done abroad where it is allowed? THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT • It makes the majority as the only true and legitimate voice of what is moral or not. • The majority is always right! They can never be wrong! FALSE! • The minority can also be correct in moral matters. “moral reformists” THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT • Ignored the subgroup problem. Reality of subgroups. How can one define the boundary or scope of what really constitutes a group? In reality, people belong to a numerous subgroups. People can belong to overlapping societies or groups. In fact we all do. At times, also in conflict with one another. We are multicultural to some extent. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT • CONFORMITY = TRUTH/REALITY CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT The Virgin Seminarian Christian is a new college graduate from the seminary who is on an exposure program. He never had any girlfriend throughout his life. He now teaches Ethics to sophomore nursing students in an exclusive and prestigious university as part of his formation before going back to the seminary to continue his priestly studies. He was shocked to find out that all his students consider PMS as something acceptable. For him sex is sacred that should only be done by married couples who are committed to each other. The students of Christian, upon knowing his moral philosophy, simply told him that he is entitled to his own opinion on the matter as they are also entitled to theirs. Do you find this reasoning valid? Why or why not? Is good and bad all a matter of personal opinion? THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT • Granting that indeed we are uncertain about the morality of some of our actions and decisions, and we cannot really “prove” them beyond any reasonable doubt. This does not mean that it has no answer whatsoever. • Even if there were no solid way to know moral truths, it would not follow that there are no such truths. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT • It may be that some truths are forever hidden from us ordinary and limited mortals. But the very statement that they are hidden paradoxically confirms that they exist. • The very act of discussing whether it is ever possible to resolve moral disputes, is itself a “proof” that an “answer” exists. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT • Moral disagreements presupposed that there are moral disagreements to resolve. • There is something independent of the disagreements which serve as some kind of a basis or gauge, thus, making the disagreements possible. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT • PROVABILITY = ETHICAL RELATIVISM • PROVABILITY = TRUTH ETHICAL RELATIVISM • Discuss the theory of ethical relativism • Expalain the role that culture plays in moral behavior and development. • Identify and explain the arguments FOR and AGAINST it. • Situate the theory of ethical relativism in the context of Filipino cultural traits and values. THE AMBIVALENCE OF FILIPINO TRAITS AND VALUES By Prof. Emerita S. Quito, PhD 1. HIYA (shame) • Negative, because it arrests or inhibits one’s action. • Positive, because it contributes to peace of mind and lack of stress by not even trying to achieve. 2. NINGAS-COGON (procrastination) • Negative, because it begins ardently and dies down as soon as it begins. • Positive, because it makes a person non-chalant, detached, indifferent, nonplussed should anything go wrong, and hence conducive to peace and tranquility. 3. PAKIKISAMA (group loyalty) • Negative, because one closes one’s eyes to evils like graft and corruption in order to conserve peace and harmony in a group at the expense of one’s comfort. • Positive, because one lives for others; peace or lack of dissension is a constant goal. 4. PATIGASAN (test of strength) • Negative, because it is stubborn and resist all efforts at reconciliation. • Positive, because it is a sign that we know our rights and are not easily cowed into submission. 5. BAHALA NA (resignation) • Negative, because one leaves everything to chance under the pretext of trusting in Divine providence. • Positive, because one relies on superior power rather than on one’s own; it is conducive to humility, modesty, and lack of arrogance. 6. KASI (because, i.e., scapegoat) • Negative, because one disowns responsibility and makes a scapegoat out of someone or something. • Positive, because one can see both sides of the picture and know exactly where a project failed; one will never suffer from guilt or self-recrimination. 7. SAVING FACE • Negative, because being closely related to hiya and kasi, it enables a person to shirk responsibility; one is never accountable for anything. • Positive, because one’s psyche is saved from undue embarrassment, sleepless nights, remorse of conscience; it saves one from accountability or responsibility. 8. SAKOP (inclusion) • Negative, because one never learns to be on one’s own but relies on one’s family and relatives. • Positive, because one cares for the family and clan; one stands or falls with them. 9. BUKAS NA/MAMAYA NA (procrastination) • Negative, because one constantly postpones action and accomplishes nothing. • Positive, because one is without stress and tension; one learns to take what comes naturally. 10. UTANG NA LOOB (indebtedness) • Negative, because one overlooks moral principle when one is indebted to a person. • Positive, because it is a recognition of one’s indebtedness. This trait portrays the spirit behind Filipino saying, “He who does not know how to look back the past will never reach his destination”. 11. KANYA-KANYA (self-centeredness) • Negative, because self-centered; one has no regard for others. • Positive, because one takes care of oneself and one’s family: “Blood is thicker than water.”