00:00:01
our lecture for this week covers moral
00:00:03
objectivism versus moral relativism in
00:00:06
addition to watching this lecture make
00:00:08
sure you also read the pyment article on
00:00:10
D2L and then make sure you also watch
00:00:12
any additional videos that are posted to
00:00:14
get more of a context than what I'm able
00:00:16
to offer here so in our last lecture we
00:00:19
talked about metaphysics and we talked
00:00:22
about distin the distinction between our
00:00:24
perceptions of reality and reality in
00:00:27
itself and in this distinction
00:00:30
we describe the process of learning as
00:00:33
being a process of getting my subjective
00:00:36
perceptions to match an objective
00:00:39
reality this notion is a fairly Common
00:00:43
Sense approach to learning and we can
00:00:45
easily understand how it applies to
00:00:46
things like trees uh tree is a physical
00:00:49
object and so if we want to learn about
00:00:51
trees what we're doing is we're trying
00:00:53
to get our perception of a tree to match
00:00:56
the way that a tree actually is
00:01:01
so now when it comes to the question of
00:01:03
whether moral principles are objective
00:01:05
or relative what we are trying to do is
00:01:09
discover whether or not the process of
00:01:11
learning applies to
00:01:14
ethics in other words we all know that
00:01:17
we have moral feelings so when we
00:01:20
witness say a tragic event like the
00:01:22
Rwanda genocide in the early
00:01:25
1990s this was an event where a group of
00:01:28
people known as the hus who were part of
00:01:30
the majority people group in Rwanda
00:01:33
decided to arm themselves with machetes
00:01:36
clubs blunt objects and other weapons to
00:01:40
systematically rape Mame and kill their
00:01:43
Tootsie neighbors this was a genocide
00:01:46
that lasted for about a 100 days and
00:01:48
somewhere between 500,000 and a million
00:01:51
people were killed during that time
00:01:53
period now when we witness an event like
00:01:55
the Rwanda genocide we will likely have
00:01:58
emotions that caus us to think that such
00:02:01
tragedies are Not Mere tragedies but
00:02:04
they're also deeply immoral we might
00:02:06
even use words like Wicked or deplorable
00:02:09
to describe them these are the feelings
00:02:12
of moral judgment and the question we
00:02:15
need to ask is this are those feelings
00:02:20
connected to anything that is real
00:02:22
outside of our mere
00:02:25
perceptions if you answer yes to this
00:02:27
question then you would be a moral
00:02:30
objectivist if you answer no to this
00:02:33
question then you would be a moral
00:02:36
relativist and one of the reasons why
00:02:38
moral relativism has philosophical
00:02:41
appeal is because there are difficulties
00:02:44
in defining what is meant by a moral
00:02:46
fact so we all know what physical facts
00:02:49
are but what exactly is a moral fact
00:02:53
this question is much harder to Define
00:02:56
and so maybe it would be helpful for us
00:02:57
to begin with an analogy using the
00:03:00
concept of Health in one of the assigned
00:03:04
videos for this week you will hear
00:03:06
philosopher and neuroscientist Sam
00:03:08
Harris explained that the concept of
00:03:10
morality is much like the concept of
00:03:13
Health like morality health is also a
00:03:17
difficult concept to Define and yet the
00:03:19
concept is not
00:03:21
unintelligible we can see this by asking
00:03:23
the question of which drink is more
00:03:25
healthy orange juice or apple juice well
00:03:29
there might be significant debate on
00:03:31
this question and perhaps this is a
00:03:34
question that we will never be able to
00:03:36
answer but note this does not mean that
00:03:39
therefore the concept of health is
00:03:42
incomprehensible consider a similar
00:03:46
question which is healthier to drink
00:03:49
apple juice or
00:03:51
Drano now Drano is a drain cleaning
00:03:54
product that you pour in your sink to
00:03:57
get rid of
00:03:58
clogs well the answer to this question
00:04:00
is not that difficult we know that
00:04:03
drinking Drano will kill you whereas
00:04:05
drinking apple juice will
00:04:08
not recognizing this distinction
00:04:10
highlights that even though the concept
00:04:12
of health is difficult to Define in a
00:04:15
precise manner it is nonetheless an
00:04:18
intelligible concept that allows us to
00:04:20
determine the difference between healthy
00:04:22
foods and
00:04:24
poisons the concept of morality is
00:04:26
similar to this so now if I was to ask
00:04:29
ask you the question which acts are more
00:04:32
moral building a house for Habitat for
00:04:35
Humanity or serving at a Food Kitchen
00:04:39
well this question might not have an
00:04:41
answer but again it does not mean that
00:04:43
the concept of morality is
00:04:46
unintelligible to see this we only need
00:04:49
to point out the extremes on the moral
00:04:52
Continuum for example if I was to ask
00:04:55
you which is more ethical participating
00:04:58
in the Rwanda genocide or building a
00:05:00
house for Habitat for Humanity the
00:05:03
answer to this question should be
00:05:04
obvious and in the lecture by Sam Harris
00:05:07
he uses this moral Continuum as he calls
00:05:10
it to demonstrate why moral values are
00:05:13
not vague or relative
00:05:16
Concepts well this may seem simple
00:05:18
enough but we should ask why would some
00:05:22
then argue that moral values are
00:05:24
relative well to answer this question we
00:05:26
need to make some important distinctions
00:05:28
to understand what is meant by ethical
00:05:32
relativism and the first distinction
00:05:34
that we need to make is that of cultural
00:05:38
relativism or what poyan calls in his
00:05:40
article the diversity
00:05:44
thesis this thesis highlights that
00:05:47
different cultures do have different
00:05:50
moral values so on your screen we have
00:05:53
culture a versus culture B and so you
00:05:56
can imagine a culture culture a where it
00:05:59
is a moral duty to benefit an elderly
00:06:02
person by taking her life when she gets
00:06:05
older now that
00:06:07
certainly uh represents values that we
00:06:10
would not in our culture agree with but
00:06:13
then we could also Imagine culture B
00:06:16
where it is morally forbidden to take
00:06:18
the life of an elderly person so here
00:06:21
you have two cultures that have two
00:06:25
distinct views very different views
00:06:28
contrary views on what is considered
00:06:30
morally valuable and morally good or we
00:06:34
consider a culture where it's morally
00:06:36
permissible to promote racism and
00:06:38
segregation we can certainly think of
00:06:40
cultures that have promoted this um in
00:06:42
the past and we could think of cultures
00:06:44
that promote um these types of ideals
00:06:46
today versus another culture culture B
00:06:50
where racism is morally wrong no matter
00:06:53
the motivation or the
00:06:56
cause we could think of many examples
00:06:59
where different cultures have very
00:07:01
different moral values and so this
00:07:05
diversity thesis the fact that different
00:07:07
cultures do have different moral values
00:07:09
then leads to another thesis which we
00:07:13
call the dependency
00:07:15
thesis this thesis states that
00:07:18
morality is the set of common rules
00:07:21
habits and Customs that have won social
00:07:25
approval over time so that they seem
00:07:28
part of the nature of things
00:07:30
as facts there's nothing mysterious or
00:07:33
Transcendent about these codes or
00:07:35
behaviors rather they are the outcomes
00:07:39
of our social
00:07:41
history so now when you
00:07:44
combined the diversity thesis with the
00:07:47
dependency thesis many will argue that
00:07:50
this provides a foundation for ethical
00:07:54
relativism and so to understand this
00:07:56
argument I would refer you to the pyman
00:07:58
article posted on D2L
00:08:00
and in that article pyman explains in
00:08:02
different
00:08:04
cultures if different cultures have
00:08:06
different moral values which would be
00:08:08
cultural
00:08:09
relativism and if those moral values are
00:08:12
binding only for people who live in that
00:08:14
particular culture then it follows that
00:08:17
there are no Universal moral principles
00:08:20
that are valid for all cultures and all
00:08:23
people at all
00:08:25
times we will briefly evaluate this
00:08:27
argument in a moment but but before we
00:08:29
do let's turn to another claim mentioned
00:08:32
by poan and that is the claim of
00:08:34
subjective ethical
00:08:37
relativism this position states that
00:08:41
morality is in the eye of each
00:08:44
individual Beholder so now we're not
00:08:47
talking about cultures broadly speaking
00:08:50
we're talking about how each individual
00:08:52
is able to come up with his or her own
00:08:55
system of moral values so no one person
00:08:59
or no no group of people can judge
00:09:02
another person's moral values or moral
00:09:05
views this would be subjective ethical
00:09:08
relativism and in short it states that
00:09:11
just as different societies have
00:09:13
different moral values the same thing
00:09:15
applies to different
00:09:17
individuals so pyman argues that if this
00:09:21
perspective were correct then some
00:09:24
absurd consequences would follow such as
00:09:28
Adolf Hitler would be just as moral as
00:09:31
Gandhi or judging another person is just
00:09:35
as moral as not judging another person
00:09:38
or we might say that promoting racism
00:09:41
would be just as moral as fighting
00:09:43
Against
00:09:46
Racism so because of these uh
00:09:50
contradictory positions that one could
00:09:52
hold poan concludes that radical
00:09:55
individualistic relativism seems
00:09:58
incoherent
00:10:00
he argues therefore that the only
00:10:02
plausible form of ethical relativism
00:10:05
would be one that grounds morality in a
00:10:07
group or a culture and this form of
00:10:10
relativism is called
00:10:15
conventionalism so now as we're looking
00:10:17
at conventionalism we might ask what
00:10:20
makes this view
00:10:21
attractive well one of the things that
00:10:23
makes it attractive is that it seems to
00:10:27
undermind intolerance
00:10:29
and it seems to undermine
00:10:33
ethnocentrism um so we know that it
00:10:35
feels wrong at least from our culture it
00:10:38
feels wrong to judge another culture's
00:10:42
moral practices by comparing those
00:10:45
practices to the moral sensibilities of
00:10:48
our own culture um something inherently
00:10:51
feels wrong to us about that and and we
00:10:54
might ask the question well who says our
00:10:57
culture is right
00:10:59
because couldn't it be the case that
00:11:02
another person's culture that they might
00:11:04
judge us on our moral practices by
00:11:07
comparing them to the moral
00:11:09
sensibilities of their culture so if
00:11:12
they can do it to us and we do it to
00:11:14
them who says that our culture is right
00:11:17
uh there is something that I think is
00:11:19
inherently attractive about this
00:11:22
position uh especially giving the moral
00:11:24
sensibilities of those who are raised in
00:11:26
cultures where tolerance acceptance were
00:11:29
taught as foundational moral
00:11:32
values but poyan points out that this is
00:11:35
actually where the problem with this
00:11:36
position
00:11:38
arises he writes The View contains a
00:11:43
contradiction if no moral principles are
00:11:46
universally
00:11:47
valid how can tolerance be universally
00:11:52
valid whence comes its
00:11:55
validity if morality is simply relative
00:11:59
to each culture and if the culture does
00:12:03
not promote a principle of
00:12:06
intolerance then its members have no
00:12:08
obligation to be tolerant from a
00:12:12
relativistic point of view there is no
00:12:15
more reason to be tolerant than to be
00:12:18
intolerant and neither stance is
00:12:21
objectively morally better than the
00:12:24
other and so pman goes on to say if
00:12:28
conventional relativism is
00:12:31
accepted then racism genocide of
00:12:35
unpopular minorities oppression of the
00:12:38
poor
00:12:39
slavery and even the advocacy of War for
00:12:42
its own sake are equally moral as their
00:12:49
opposites and this seems to be
00:12:51
unacceptable from po men's perspective
00:12:54
because it promotes um a contradiction
00:12:57
when it comes to moral values
00:13:00
but poan also points out a logical flaw
00:13:04
in conventional relativism by arguing
00:13:07
that it makes an unwarranted
00:13:10
slide he says the argument for
00:13:13
conventional relativism starts with this
00:13:15
premise we observe that different
00:13:18
cultures have different moral
00:13:21
rules and so this is something that we
00:13:23
can all agree upon poan doesn't doubt it
00:13:26
we all observe that different cultures
00:13:28
have different moral r rules but then we
00:13:31
move to this conclusion that doesn't
00:13:34
follow
00:13:35
logically we conclude on the first
00:13:38
premise that no culture set of rules are
00:13:42
better than any other culture set of
00:13:44
rules and this just does not logically
00:13:47
follow and to see that it doesn't
00:13:49
logically follow we might note the
00:13:51
distinction between description versus
00:13:55
prescription so description is where you
00:13:58
describe something
00:13:59
such as we describe the phenomena that
00:14:02
different cultures have different moral
00:14:03
values we can describe that we know that
00:14:06
it's a fact but then we move from
00:14:08
description to prescription and say
00:14:11
therefore different cultures ought to
00:14:13
have different moral values to see the
00:14:16
fallacy in this type of reasoning
00:14:19
consider a different example in a math
00:14:21
class we might observe that different
00:14:24
students provide different answers to
00:14:26
the same math
00:14:27
equation well this doesn't mean
00:14:29
therefore that different students ought
00:14:32
to provide different answers to the same
00:14:34
math equation to make that type of
00:14:36
argument is to confuse the distinction
00:14:38
between description versus
00:14:42
prescription and so the unwarranted
00:14:45
slide that pman is talking about is that
00:14:47
ethical
00:14:48
diversity does not imply ethical
00:14:52
relativism they are two distinct things
00:14:54
and we must not confuse them because it
00:14:57
might be the case that some more moral
00:14:59
systems are simply wrong just like some
00:15:02
students simply get wrong answers on a
00:15:05
math equation so it might be the case
00:15:08
that different cultures and different
00:15:10
individuals get different moral
00:15:12
principles wrong whereas other cultures
00:15:15
get them right and so now this moves us
00:15:18
into talking about ethical
00:15:21
objectivism so you need to note that for
00:15:24
this class the material that we're going
00:15:26
to be covering assumes some sort of
00:15:28
degree
00:15:29
of ethical
00:15:31
objectivism now note this does not
00:15:34
entail ethical
00:15:36
absolutism the absolutist believes that
00:15:39
there are non overridable moral
00:15:42
principles that ought to never be
00:15:45
violated well this absolutist position
00:15:47
seems difficult to defend because one
00:15:50
can always find a situation where moral
00:15:52
principles don't seem to apply so we
00:15:54
might take line for example well in
00:15:57
general not ly seems like a good moral
00:15:59
principle but it doesn't take much work
00:16:01
to think of scenarios where lying would
00:16:03
be morally
00:16:04
permissible and so moral objectivism
00:16:07
doesn't claim that you have to have
00:16:09
moral values that apply in every
00:16:11
possible
00:16:13
situation rather what moral objectivism
00:16:16
argues for is that there are valid rules
00:16:20
of action that should generally be
00:16:23
adhered to not always but generally but
00:16:27
that may also be overridden by another
00:16:29
moral principle in cases of moral
00:16:33
conflict and so this is the general
00:16:36
position that our class is built upon
00:16:39
and that is the position that allows us
00:16:41
to look at different ethical principles
00:16:44
throughout the semester so we're going
00:16:46
to examine some of the more plausible
00:16:50
ethical principles that have been
00:16:51
proposed by philosophers and ethesis
00:16:54
throughout Western
00:16:56
philosophy and through this study
00:17:00
we will find that between these
00:17:02
different principles whether we're
00:17:03
talking about the utilitarian principle
00:17:05
or the libertarian principle or the
00:17:07
egalitarian principle we will find that
00:17:10
occasionally there are tensions between
00:17:12
these
00:17:13
principles but these tensions I want to
00:17:16
argue do not undermine the notion of
00:17:19
objective moral
00:17:21
values rather these tensions provide
00:17:24
opportunities for us to continually
00:17:27
refine and find tune our moral
00:17:30
principles so that those principles
00:17:33
would more accurately correspond to
00:17:36
reality
