Notes on Heather
Widdows, Global Ethics:
An Introduction, chapter 3

• Universalism vs. Relativism
• Stronger vs. Weaker Forms of Universalism
• Cultural Relativism and the Argument from Difference
• Arguments against Relativism and for Universalism
• Case Study: Female Genital Cutting
• Universal Moral Theories: Consequentialism/Utilitarianism,
Deontology/Kantianism, Virtue Ethics (and Buddhism)

“Universalism takes there to be at least some moral values and standards that hold independently of any particular cultural, political or historical context. The relativism denies this claim, and says that moral norms and practices always arise from, and are understandable only within, certain contexts ” (p. 31).

1.
Culture X holds that action (a) is morally impermissible and culture Y that action (a) is morally permissible.
2.
Therefore, cultures have demonstrably different moral codes.
3.
Thus, from 2, judgments about the moral rightness or wrongness of (a) are expressions of conventions and norms that vary between cultures.
4.
So, from 3, action (a) cannot be judged either morally right or morally wrong from an objective, universal, non-culturally contextual perspective.
5.
Therefore, there is no objective or universal moral truth.

• The conclusions of the argument from difference do not follow from the premises.
• It confuses underlying values with application in practice.
• It conflicts with moral experience.
• It ignores that evaluation is fundamental to moral practice.
• It ignores the interrelatedness of cultures in our globalized world.

“Utilitarianism asserts that the correct social and moral goal is to make as many people as happy as possible ” (p. 44).

Utilitarianism:
• is the greatest good of the greatest number;
• is impartial;
• is consequentialist;
• measures happiness;
• is maximizing.

Happiness is:
•a mental state – “ feeling happy ” ;
•desire satisfaction – “ getting what you want ” ;
•Objective list theories – “ having what you need.
”

“Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life ’s experiences? If you are worried about missing out on desirable experiences, we can suppose that business enterprises have researched thoroughly the lives of many others.
You can pick and choose from their large library or smorgasbord of such experiences, selecting your life ’s experiences for, say, the next two years. After two years have passed, you will have ten minutes or ten hours out of the tank, to select the experiences of your next two years. Of course, while in the tank you won ’t know that you’re there; you’ll think it’s all actually happening. Others can also plug in to have the experiences they want, so there ’s no need to stay unplugged to serve them. (Ignore problems such as who will service the machines if everyone plugs in.) Would you plug in?
”
( From Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia [New York: Basic Books,
1974], p. 42.)

Advantages
•It is intuitively attractive – “ Of course it is moral to work for the greatest good of the greatest number!
”
•It is unified and simple.
•It embraces the key principle of equality and impartiality.
•Almost everyone believes that utilitarian reasoning is correct in at least some circumstances.
Disadvantages
•It conflicts with some ingrained aspects of moral experience.
•It condones actions generally regarded as immoral.
•There are difficulties in measuring happiness.
•It is too demanding.
•It fails to protect individuals.

“For deontologists, it is not the outcome of an action that determines its moral rightness, but the status of the action itself and its accordance with moral duty. In colloquial terms, for a deontological theory desirable ends definitely cannot justify bad means: an action is intrinsically right or wrong in and of itself. Therefore if an action is morally right then it is morally required and ought to be done no matter what the consequences and irrespective of any personal reservations, desires, wishes or excuses. Morally right acts are those that quite simply one ought to do irrespective of anything else; to use
Kant ’s word they are ‘categorical’” (p. 53).

• Hypothetical = “If you want X, then do Y.”
• Categorical = “Do X!” or “Don’t do Y!”

Kantianism:
• is universalizable;
• asserts moral right and wrong, determined by the categorical imperative;
• finds that moral agents are rational;
• treats human beings as ends not only means;
• respects persons.

Advantages:
•It fits with the moral intuition.
•It is universal.
•It treats all similar cases similarly.
•It respects persons.
Disadvantages:
•There are some conflicts with moral experience (e.g. the “Inquiring
Murderer
”)
•It reduces morality to duty.
•It is legalistic and mechanistic.
•There are conflicts of rules and acts.

“In virtue ethics, right actions follow from good character, from a conception of what a person is like; their character, inner traits, dispositions and motives are important….[I]t would matter to a virtue ethicists why and with what motivations a person lied: they would not just be concerned with the act of the lie, its conformity to duty or the moral law, or its consequences. Correspondingly, the characteristic rightness of telling the truth stems from it expressing the virtue of honesty ” (p. 59).

Virtue ethicists argue that Utilitarianism and Kantianism are:
• Reductionist
• Mechanical
• Legalistic

Eudaimonia = “flourishing” or “well-being” in an objective sense as opposed to merely “feeling happy” in a subjective sense.

Trait concerns
Danger
Money, resources
Social interaction
Appetite
Temper
Vice of excess
Foolhardiness
Virtue, the mean Vice of deficiency
Courage Cowardice
Wastefulness Generosity
Obsequiousness Friendliness
Miserliness
Standoffishness
Over-indulgence Temperance
Aggressiveness
Self-sacrifice
Level-headedness Timidity

• What we should “be” is the basis of what we should “do” (good persons are prior to right actions).
• Emphasizes human flourishing.
• Emphasizes good character and development of “practical wisdom.
”
• Emphasizes inner traits, dispositions, and motives of persons.

Advantages:
• It considers the whole person.
• It is agent-focused.
• It respects actual persons and their commitments and relationships.
Disadvantages:
• It is complex.
•
It has difficulty defining virtues.
• Conflicts of virtues are difficult to negotiate.
• It is difficult to apply globally.