EMP Ch. 2 Cultural Relativism:
A “Midas Touch” Morality

We want to:

1. Understand what Cultural Relativism is. If you accept CR, then what exactly do you believe?
2. Identify and evaluate some reasons that people might give in favor of CR: why might they accept CR?
3. Identify and evaluate some arguments against CR.
4. On the basis of 1-3, decide whether there are better reasons to accept CR or reject it.

The take home message:

To respond to a moral issue, “That’s ‘their culture’, so you can’t criticize them!” seems to be based on poor reasoning. So, if anyone says this, we will say, “So what? Yes, that's what their (or our culture) accepts, but they might be mistaken. So what are their moral reasons in favor of this practice? Are these reasons part of sound arguments or not”

1. A general truth: “Believing something don’t make it so!”

In general, there’s a difference between:

· someone’s believing something to be the case, and

· something being the case.

There’s a difference between believing a claim to be true and that claim being true. (Examples?)

Also, there’s a difference between:

· the majority of people in a culture believing something to be the case (or some claim true), and

· that thing being the case (or that claim being true). \

2. Cultural relativists deny this general principle:

They think that a cultural majority’s believing something to be morally permissible [MP] (or impermissible) makes it MP or not MP.

CR’s think this:

An action is morally permissible if, and only if, the majority of a culture approves of that act, i.e., believes it to be morally permissible.

· If the majority of a society approves of an action, then it’s MP (group approval is a sufficient condition for MP).

· An action is MP only if the majority approves of it (group approval is a necessary condition for MP).

This definition of CR clearly implies Rachels’ claims (2), (3), & (4), but the core idea is (2): (3) and (4) are implications or consequences of (2). (EMP, p. 18-19). Whether it supports (5), the claim that we should be tolerant, is something that needs to be discussed. And (1) – since everyone accepts it – is not part of CR. Indeed it seems to be a premise in an argument for CR.

3. In light of the logical implications of CR, why would someone accept CR? What might their argument(s) be?

1. An argument from disagreement

2. An argument from the idea that we should be “tolerant”

3. …. What else?

4. What are some arguments against CR? (see also the discussion in RTD)

The argument from error:

1. If CR is true, then if someone’s moral views are in the majority, then they cannot be mistaken.

2. But someone’s moral views can be mistaken, even if they are in the majority.

3. So CR is false.

The argument from moral progress:

1. If CR is true, then the majority’s moral views must always right (no matter what!).

2. If the majority’s moral views must always right, then “reformers” – who are in the minority – cannot be right.

3. If “reformers” cannot be right, then moral progress – widespread changes for the better, the majority coming to adopt the (formerly) minority view – is impossible.

4. But moral progress is possible.

5. So “reformers” can be right.

6. So the majority isn’t necessarily right.

7. So CR is false. (multiple modus tollens)

The argument from moral methodology:

1. If CR is true, then the way to find out what’s really MP (not just what people believe to be MP) is to do a survey.

2. But surveys will not reveal what’s really MP (they only show what people believe to be MP).

3. So CR is false. (MT)

The argument from the ability to evaluate cultures:

1. If CR is true, then we can never truthfully say that a majority-approved of practice in another culture is wrong.

2. But we can truthfully say that a practice in another culture is wrong, even if the majority approves of it.

3. Therefore, CR is not true.

Other arguments?

4. So what are the arguments for CR?

1. Cultures disagree on the morality of some actions. (What if the premise said all actions)?

2. Therefore, an action is morally permissible if, and only if, the majority of a culture approves of that act, i.e., believes it to be morally permissible.

3. Therefore, Rachels’ claims (2), (3), & (4) are true (EMP, p. 18-19), including “there is no universal truth in ethics,” i.e., there are no true moral principles that everyone should follow, wherever they are.

Rachels calls this argument unsound (p. 21); we first can be nice and add the missing premise to make it logically valid:

1. Cultures disagree on the morality of some actions. (T? F?)

2. For any topic, if there is disagreement on it, then there are no universal truths about it. (T? F?)

3. Therefore, there are no universal truths in ethics.

Another argument (it needs to be expanded to understand it, but are these expansions sound?):

1. We should be tolerant. (Of what? Everything, all actions? Some actions? Which things?)

2. Therefore, we should accept CR.

Some thoughts about (1): If (1) is true and so we should be tolerant of all actions, then there is a universally true moral principle. But if there is a universally true moral principle, then CR is false!

If CR is true, we should be tolerant of a wide variety of actions (even those that harm others) if and only if the majority of people in our society are tolerant of a wide variety of actions (even those that harm others). But our society is not tolerant in this way, so if CR is true, then we should not be tolerant either. And if there are some things that should not be tolerated in any society, then CR is false.

So what should we “tolerate”? What kind of diversity should we be respectful towards?

Rachels’ proposal for a universal moral principle: Actions that promote the welfare of people affected by it are morally permissible; actions that hinder the welfare of those affected are morally wrong.

Important points that CR can help us see: many! See Rachels’ discussion!

Some cultural differences do not matter morally. Others do matter: we can morally evaluate them.

For Thursday:
EMP Ch. 2 &
"What's Culture Got to Do with it? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision"
Please write detailed summaries on both the readings.

For Friday:
EMP Ch. 3 &
RTD 27. Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Burton M. Leiser 237
Please write detailed summaries on both the readings.

Discussion of Rachels Elements of Moral Philosophy Ch. 1

What is it to ‘Think Morally’?

“Morality is …”

Someone is “thinking morally” or engaged in “moral thinking” when:
(1) one is guiding one’s thought by reasons – the best reasons – and
(2) one gives equal weight to each individual who is affected by one’s actions.

Re. (1): reasons include (scientific, empirical) facts and moral principles.

Case 1: Baby Theresa L
· What’s her situation?
· What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?

The parents' argument:
(3) If we can (a) benefit someone without (b) harming anyone else, it’s right to do so.
(4) By taking Theresa’s organs we can (a) benefit others and (b) not harm anyone else.
(5) So, taking Teresa’s organs is right (i.e., not wrong).

Is this arguments sound or not?

· What did “the critics” say” (p. 2)

(6) “It’s too horrifying to use people as means to other people’s ends.”
(7) “It’s unethical to kill in order to save, unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
(8) “The parents are saying we should kill the baby to use the organs. That’s horrendous!

These remarks are the basis of arguments. Are these arguments sound or not? If any of them are, then argument (3)-(5) is not sound.

Re. Remark (6):
(A) If someone is used as a means to another’s end, then that is wrong.
(B) Taking Teresa’s organs would be to use her as a means.
(C) So, it would be wrong to take her organs.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise?)

Re. Remark (7):
(D) If person A is killed to save person B, then that’s wrong.
(E) To kill Teresa would be to kill her to save others.
(F) Therefore, it’s wrong to kill Teresa.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? (Are they somehow ambiguous or imprecise?)

Re. Remark (8): ?

Case 2: Jodie and Mary

· What’s their situation? What did her parents want to do? What did the hospital want to do? What were their reasons?

“Whose to decide?!” Asking this kind of question is often a way to avoid thinking about which arguments are best. (Also, it’s often unwise to ask rhetorical questions, since there might be good answer to them).

An argument:
(G) If we have a choice between saving one infant and letting both die, we should save one.
(H) We have such a choice.
(I) So we should save one.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

Some critics say:

(J) If someone is an ‘innocent human life’, then they should never be killed.
(K) Mary is an innocent human life.
(L) Therefore, Mary should not be killed.

Is the argument valid? Are the premises true?

3rd Case: Tracy Latimer
· What’s her situation? (We need to think about the details..)
· What did her parents want to do? What were their reasons?

· What did their critics say?

Take note of:
· Feelings
· Require reasons
· Getting one’s (non-moral) facts straight: checking up on the empirical / scientific evidence
· Impartiality: differences in treatment are justified only by relevant differences in the person/being and in light of general moral principles; otherwise these are unjustified prejudices.

Tomorrow our class with overlap with that public health bioethics class again. For Wednesday though we will pick up with Rachels EMP Ch. 1. Thursday we will do Chapter 2.

Here's what I suggested the Public Health class look at:

Today people seemed to vote that they'd like to discuss abortion/stem cell research/cloning (which can all be related in various ways) and/or euthanasia/physician assisted suicide.

Here is a reading on abortion:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm

James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," JAMA
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Rachels_Euthanasia.pdf

Here's what's been assigned for our class so far, from the syl.:

Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)

For Monday

Monday and Tuesday we will join my IMHOTEP mini bioethics course.

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:00 a.m.-11:50 a.m. Nabrit-Mapp-McBayLecture Room II

Poverty and Global Public Health: Charity or Justice inResource Allocation?

READINGS: 1. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer, The NY Times.http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm 2. Gregory Pence, Ch. 4. “UTILITARIANS VS. KANTIANS ON STOPPING AIDS,” from The Elements of Bioethics (McGraw Hill, 2006)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/pence.pdf 3. “Racism and Health Care: A Medical Ethics Issue,” Annette Dula, from A Companion to African-American Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003).http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/dula.pdf 4. Introduction to sections on “Resource Allocation” in Singer and Kuhse(eds.) Bioethics: An Anthology (Blackwell, 2007)http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/resource-intro.pdf WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 (due at the beginning of class): A number of philosophers, health-care professionals and activists have argued that we are morally obligated to focus greater attention on the needs of people living in poverty and absolute poverty, both domestically and abroad. What are their arguments? What challenges do these positions face? What, if anything, are we obligated to do to address the needs of these differing populations? Why?

For Friday

These have been assigned, focusing on the Rachels writings:

 Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books:http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)

Day 1, Day 3 activities

Our discussion of the three little sample arguments from day 1 is found in this paper:
"Rational Engagement, Emotional Response and the Prospects for Progress in Animal Use 'Debates'" (in WORD) for Jeremy Garrett, ed., Animal Research in Theory and Practice (MIT Basic Bioethics Series. 2009). [Final version , shortened a bit]. Here's a draft of an APPENDIX that addresses more arguments. 

The moral theory building exercise is discussed here, as are other intro to ethics matters:
http://ethicsandanimals.googlepages.com/lectures.htm#_Lecture_1:_Introduction 

Philosophical Ethics, Summer 2009

Philosophical Ethics, Summer 2009

http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Intro to Philosophical Ethics - 48201 - HPHI 302G - 01

Class 10:30 am - 11:50 am MTWRF Sale Hall 110 Jun 02, 2009 - Jul 15, 2009

Instructor: Dr. Nathan Nobis (nathan.nobis@gmail.com)

Office: Philosophy & Religion Department, Sale Hall 113

Office Hours: before and after class and by appointment

Course blog: http://philosophy302.blogspot.com

Syllabus: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/302summer2009.pdf

Email announcement group: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/

Catalogue Description: Provides an introduction to philosophical reflection about the nature and function of morality. Readings will include both historical and contemporary materials.

Extended Description: This course provides students with the opportunity to improve their skills at reasoning critically about moral issues. Students will learn some basic logic and critical thinking skills and apply them to theoretical and practical questions about morality. We will practice identifying precise and unambiguous moral conclusions (i.e., exact perspectives taken on moral issues) and the reasons given for and against these conclusions. We will then practice evaluating these reasons to see if they provide rational support for these conclusions or not. We will think about what helps people think more carefully and critically about moral issues and what factors and influences discourage this. We will discuss influential ethical theories and moral principles – answers to the questions ‘What’s the basic difference between a right and wrong action?’ and ‘What makes right actions right and wrong actions wrong?’ – and apply our critical thinking skills to moral issues such as female genital mutilation, homosexuality, abortion, famine and absolute poverty, racism, sexism, and speciesism, vegetarianism and the treatment of animals, euthanasia and assisted suicide, capital punishment, affirmative action, civil disobedience, and environmentalism, among others.

Required course materials:

James and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 5^th Ed. [EMP]

James and Stuart Rachels, eds. The Right Thing to Do, 4^th Ed. [RTD]

ANY EDITION OF THESE BOOKS WILL DO: SEE AMAZON.COM OR ABEBOOKS.COM FOR USED COPIES

Lewis Vaughn, Writing Philosophy: A Students Guide to Writing Philosophy Essays [WP].

Written Requirements / Assignments:

1. “OPS” (Outline, Paraphrase, &/or Summarize) writing assignments:

· The absolute most important thing you can do to succeed in this class is to do the reading and do the reading well. To encourage you do to do, you will be required to write 1-3 page outlines, paraphrases &/or summaries of many of the readings or selections of them. Vaughn’s Writing Philosophy, Ch. 1 provides instruction on how to do this. What most important for these assignments is that you (a) identify the author’s main conclusions, and (b) explain the reasons he or she gives in favor of these conclusions and (c) explain whether these reasons are a valid and sound argument for that conclusion or not. Merely copying the writing’s Introduction by Rachels will result in a zero for the assignment. (3 points each; 12 assignments; 36 points total)

3. Five 4-6 page Essays (argumentative essays, where a moral conclusion is defended, objections are responded to, etc.): (10 points each; 50 points total)

4. Two Exams, Midterm and Final:

• All of lecture, discussion and reading content is fair game. Study guides will be available online with possible questions for each exam to help focus your studying. Exams will mostly be short answer and short essay questions. (25 points each; 50 points total).

Rules:

Nearly always come to class. Be on time. Do the reading, carefully. Be prepared. Take the time to do a very good job on everything we do. Bring your materials, always. Contribute to class discussion. Ask questions. Do not plagiarize or cheat in any way: if you do, you will fail the course immediately. Have fun, learn a lot, and grow to become a more ethically engaged person!

First assignments:

Readings should be done in advance for the day assigned. Exact readings and assignments will be announced in class and posted on the course blog/webpage at http://philosophy302.blogspot.com. If you come to class, you should know exactly what the current assignments are. Once enrollment settles, I will provide a calendar of assignments as well.

• Get the books and needed materials.
• Sign up for the email announcement group here: http://groups.google.com/group/philosophy302/

First reading assignments; dates TBA:

o Vaughn, Ch.1, “How To Read Philosophy”

o Vaughn, Ch.2, “How To Read An Argument”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch. 2, “Some Basic Points About Arguments,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-on-arguments.pdf

o Vaughn, Ch. 5, “Avoiding Fallacious Reasoning”

o Rachels, RTD: Ch.1 “A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” available here if you don’t yet have the books: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/rachels-intro-to-ethics.pdf Writing assignment: which theory or theories are best and why? 2 pages

o Ch. 1, "What is Morality?" (EMP) OPS Writing Assignment on the arguments in favor of killing Teresa, separating the twins and killing Tracey (!!)

Further reading and writing assignments, and their dates, will be announced in class, on blog, and email group!

Note: A syllabus is not a contract, but rather a guide to course procedures. The instructor reserves the right to alter the course requirements and/or assignments based on new materials, class discussions, or other legitimate pedagogical objectives.

EMP Table of Contents Preface ix About the Sixth Edition xi 1. WHAT IS MORALITY? 1.1. The Problem of Definition 1 1.2. First Example: Baby Theresa 1 1.3. Second Example: Jodie and Mary 5 1.4. Third Example: Tracy Latimer 7 1.5. Reason and Impartiality 10 1.6. The Minimum Conception of Morality 13 2. THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM 2.1. Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes 14 2.2. Cultural Relativism 16 2.3. The Cultural Differences Argument 17 2.4. What Follows from Cultural Relativism Seriously 19 2.5. Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems 21 2.6. Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures 23 2.7. Judging a Cultural Practice to Be Undesirable 24 2.8. Back to the Five Claims 27 2.9. What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism 29 3. SUBJECTIVISM IN ETHICS 3.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism 32 3.2. The Evolution of the Theory 33 3.3. The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism 34 3.4. The Second Stage: Emotivism 36 3.5. The Role of Reason in Ethics 39 3.6. Are There Proofs in Ethics? 41 3.7. The Question of Homosexuality 44 4. DOES MORALITY DEPEND ON RELIGION? 4.1. The Presumed Connection Between Morality and Religion 48 4.2. The Divine Command Theory 50 4.3. The Theory of Natural Law 53 4.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues 57 5. ETHICAL EGOISM 5.1. Is There a Duty to Help Starving People? 62 5.2. Psychological Egoism 63 5.3. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism 69 5.4. Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism 74 6. THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT 6.1. Hobbes's Argument 80 6.2. The Prisoner's Dilemma 83 6.3. Some Advantages of the Social Contract Theory 87 6.4. The Problem of Civil Disobedience 90 6.5. Difficulties for the Theory 93 7. THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH 7.1. The Revolution in Ethics 97 7.2. First Example: Euthanasia 98 7.3. Second Example: Marijuana 101 7.4. Third Example: Nonhuman Animals 104 8. THE DEBATE OVER UTILITARIANISM 8.1. The Classical Version of the Theory 109 8.2. Is Pleasure the Only Thing That Matters? 109 8.3. Are Consequences All That Matter? 111 8.4. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? 115 8.5. The Defense of Utilitarianism 116 8.6. Concluding Thoughts 122 9. ARE THERE ABSOLUTE MORAL RULES? 9.1. Harry Truman and Elizabeth Anscombe 124 9.2. The Categorical Imperative 127 9.3. Kant's Arguments on Lying 129 9.4. Conflicts between Rules 132 9.5. Kant's Insight 133 10. KANT AND RESPECT FOR PERSONS 10.1. Kant's Core Ideas 136 10.2. Retribution and Utility in the Theory of Punishment 139 10.3. Kant's Retributivism 141 11. FEMINISM AND THE ETHICS OF CARE 11.1. Do Women and Men Think Differently about Ethics? 146 11.2. Implications for Moral Judgment 152 11.3. Implications for Ethical Theory 156 12. THE ETHICS OF VIRTUE 12.1. The Ethics of Virtue and the Ethics of Right Action 158 12.2. The Virtues 160 12.3. Two Advantages of Virtue Theory 168 12.4. Virtue and Conduct 169 12.5. The Problem of Incompleteness 186 12.6. Conclusion 172 13. WHAT WOULD A SATISFACTORY MORAL THEORY BE LIKE? 13.1. Morality without Hubris 173 13.2. Treating People as They Deserve 175 13.3. A Variety of Motives 176 13.4. Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism 177 13.5. The Moral Community 180 13.6. Justice and Fairness 181 13.7. Conclusion 183

RTD Table of Contents Preface v INTRODUCTION 1. A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy James Rachels 1 2. Some Basic Points About Arguments James Rachels 20 UTILITARIANISM 3. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill 29 4. Utilitarianism and Integrity Bernard Williams 40 5. The Experience Machine Robert Nozick 46 OTHER THEORETICAL ESSAYS 6. The Subjectivity of Values J. L. Mackie 49 7. The Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant 61 8. The Virtues Aristotle 67 9. Master Morality and Slave Morality Friedrich Nietzsche 74 10. Caring Relations and Principles of Justice Virginia Held 78 ABORTION 11. Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis 85 12. A Defense of Abortion Judith Jarvis Thomson 92 13. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion and Postscript on Infanticide Mary Anne Warren 109 ANIMALS 14. All Animals Are Equal Peter Singer 120 15. Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste Alastair Norcross 130 16. Do Animals Have Rights? Tibor R. Machan 138 STARVATION 17. 9/11 and Starvation Mylan Engel, Jr. 151 18. The Singer Solution to World Poverty Peter Singer 154 WAR, TERRORISM, AND TORTURE 19. The Ethics of War and Peace Douglas P. Lackey 161 20. Fifty Years after Hiroshima John Rawls 170 21. What Is Wrong with Terrorism? Thomas Nagel 178 22. The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights David Luban 181 23. Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Time Bomb David Luban 189 THE DEATH PENALTY 24. A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman 203 25. Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment Stephen B. Bright 211 SEX AND DRUGS 26. America's Unjust Drug War Michael Huemer 223 27. Is Homosexuality Unnatural? Burton M. Leiser 237 28. Monogamy: A Critique John McMurtry 246 29. Our Sexual Ethics Bertrand Russell 253 30. Alcohol and Rape Nicholas Dixon 260 RACE 31. Letter from the Birmingham City Jail Martin Luther King, Jr. 271 32. Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary? Peter Singer 279 33. In Defense of Quotas James Rachels 291 BIOETHICS 34. The Morality of Euthanasia James Rachels 306 35. Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life? Richard Doerflinger 311 36. The New Eugenics Matt Ridley 321