Hi Professor Lurz.
Aug. 18th, 2004 11:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyOn the offchance that you see this, yes, this is your student, Connie Baker. Honestly. The only way I stole this is if I stole it from myself.
Cultural Relativism
Philosophers have argued for many years on the subject of moral truths. Some have come to the conclusion that there are no moral truths, others have decided that there are moral truths that can be discovered through rational means. Still others think that there are moral truths, but only relative to an individual or a culture. The last view, cultural relativism, is the one that makes the most sense, given the world in which we live.
It is not, of course, the only view. One important view is called moral objectivism. This is the view that there are objective moral truths, and that moral truths do not depend on our viewpoint. Whatever these truths are, they are true in all cases, all the time. So, if abortion is morally wrong, it does not matter how many people believe that it is not wrong, it is still wrong. No amount of discussion, or arguments, will change this objective truth. Moral objectivism does not claim to know any moral truths. Moral objectivists cannot tell you, with certainity, whether or not abortion is wrong. All this philosophy says is that abortion is right or wrong regardless of anybody’s personal views on the subject.
Another major view is moral relativism. Moral relativism states that there are no objective moral truths. Actions can only be said to be right or wrong relative to a person or culture. Moral relativism can be divided into two philosophies, called subjective relativism and cultural relativism. Subjective relativism states that morals are relative to individuals. If I do not believe abortion is morally wrong, abortion is not morally wrong to me. If you believe that it is wrong, then it is wrong to you. I cannot say what is right for you, and you cannot say what is right for me. Cultural relativism says that moral truths exist only relative to the culture in which one lives. I cannot say that abortion is right or wrong, I can only say that it is right or wrong according to my culture. Moral relativism does not state that it is wrong to impose your morals on another person or culture. In fact, moral relativism says that if your beliefs, or your culture’s beliefs are that this is the right thing to do, then forcing your morals on another person or culture is the correct thing for you or your culture to do.
There are many arguments in favor of cultural relativism. One argument in defense of cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument. The cultural differences argument for cultural relativism goes as follows:
Different people have different moral codes
Therefore there is no objective moral truth, because right or wrong varies
by culture.
We can see this in the real world all the time. Some religions, such as the Mormons and Muslims say that it is wrong to drink alchohol. Others, such as the Catholics, give alchohol during religious services. In India, many people marry their first cousins. In the United States, these marriages are frowned upon, or even forbidden, depending on which state you live in. It seems unlikely that there is an objective moral truth hidden in all these different beliefs.
James Rachels, in his work Morality is Not Relative, does not think much of that argument. The argument, he says, is not sound. It is true that people disagree, but “does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree[d], that there is no objective truth?” Clearly, one group or the other could be mistaken. As he points out, many cultures have believed that the world is flat. Others believe that it is round. It would make no sense for somebody to say that there is no objective truth about the shape of the world merely because people disagree over what shape it is.
Rachels’ objection depends on two ideas. The first is that moral truths are the same as other sorts of truths, and can be either right or wrong, not both. The second is that something cannot have two contradictory properties at the same time. It cannot be both true and false, any more than it can be both red and green.
We have no reason to believe that moral truths are the same as other sorts of truths. Unlike ideas about the shape of the earth, we cannot begin to prove that any moral idea is the correct one. We know the earth is round because we have seen it in shape. Before we could leave the earth to view its shape, we sailed around it. Before that, people observed that the shadow cast on the moon is round. We know that the universe is expanding because if it weren’t, the reflected light from stars would fill up all the darkness, and there would be no night. There is no such proof for moral truths, no way to always divine what is the truth about any moral issue.
Some truths are unproveable. It is unlikely that we will ever find a way to prove or disprove the existence of a god, for example, or to measure the exact dimensions of the universe. If Heisenberg is correct, and he appears to be, it is impossible to ever know both the location and the energy of any particle. However, we can prove that the universe has a size, and that particles have both locations and energy. It does not matter whether there is or is not a god, we know that if God exists, He exists outside of our minds. We have no such proof for morality. Morals seem to be in our own minds.
The other idea that Rachels’ argument hinges on is the idea that something cannot have two contradictory properties at once. This seems to make sense, and most people believe that this is true. However, the real world does not always conform to what makes sense. For example, light is both a wave and a particle. This is well-accepted in physics. A particle is finite. Its energy is concentrated into space with definite boundaries, and the contents are the same throughout the particle. Waves are not finite, and their energy is not considered to exist in one place, because waves vary in displacement and in time. If light is both a wave and a particle, then that means that light is both a finite and and infinite entity. This is a contradiction, but that doesn’t matter. Light is considered to be both a wave and a particle, because it has the properties of both, even where they contradict. It is possible, of course, that light is neither, that it is something different that acts like a wave sometimes and like a particle other times, and that our decision that it is both is based on an incomplete understanding of physics. However, there are other things in the real world that seem to be two things at once. Schrodinger’s cat is a good example of this.
Erwin Schrodinger came up with this analogy about superposition in 1935. He said that if you take a cat, and put it in the lead box, you know that it is alive. If you then throw in a vial of cyanide, and seal up the box, you won’t know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box again to check. Therefore, the cat is neither dead nor alive until you check. When you use this analogy with a cat, it seems absurd. Obviously, the cat must be either dead or alive, it can’t be both and it can’t be neither. However, this does occur at the subatomic level. There have been times where a single particle has been observed to be in multiple places at the same time. So if you were asked “is the particle over here, or over there?”, the reality is that it is in both places. To most people, this would seem to make no sense. The particle does have two different, and contradictory properties. It’s both over here, and over there.
Even if we assume that moral truths are the same as other truths about the universe, quantum physics has shown that something can have two contradictory properties at the same time. If it is true that light can be both a wave and a particle, and that a particle can be in two different places at the same time, why do we have any reason to believe that moral truths cannot be both right and wrong?
Cultural relativism makes the most sense because it accurately describes the world in which we live. We might say that moral truths are only relative to individuals, but that would force us to make our own moral decisions, and to not make any sort of moral judgment about others. Instead, people almost invariably agree with their societies on moral issues, and condemn those who disagree. As Herodotus says:
Everyone, without exception, believes his own native customs, and the
religion he was brought up in to be the best.
Those rare individuals within societies who disagree are made to conform by the other people in their respective cultures. Since people will always align their personal moral codes with those set down by society, it is reasonable to say that moral truth is relative to one’s particular culture, and not to individuals.
It's not very good.
Cultural Relativism
Philosophers have argued for many years on the subject of moral truths. Some have come to the conclusion that there are no moral truths, others have decided that there are moral truths that can be discovered through rational means. Still others think that there are moral truths, but only relative to an individual or a culture. The last view, cultural relativism, is the one that makes the most sense, given the world in which we live.
It is not, of course, the only view. One important view is called moral objectivism. This is the view that there are objective moral truths, and that moral truths do not depend on our viewpoint. Whatever these truths are, they are true in all cases, all the time. So, if abortion is morally wrong, it does not matter how many people believe that it is not wrong, it is still wrong. No amount of discussion, or arguments, will change this objective truth. Moral objectivism does not claim to know any moral truths. Moral objectivists cannot tell you, with certainity, whether or not abortion is wrong. All this philosophy says is that abortion is right or wrong regardless of anybody’s personal views on the subject.
Another major view is moral relativism. Moral relativism states that there are no objective moral truths. Actions can only be said to be right or wrong relative to a person or culture. Moral relativism can be divided into two philosophies, called subjective relativism and cultural relativism. Subjective relativism states that morals are relative to individuals. If I do not believe abortion is morally wrong, abortion is not morally wrong to me. If you believe that it is wrong, then it is wrong to you. I cannot say what is right for you, and you cannot say what is right for me. Cultural relativism says that moral truths exist only relative to the culture in which one lives. I cannot say that abortion is right or wrong, I can only say that it is right or wrong according to my culture. Moral relativism does not state that it is wrong to impose your morals on another person or culture. In fact, moral relativism says that if your beliefs, or your culture’s beliefs are that this is the right thing to do, then forcing your morals on another person or culture is the correct thing for you or your culture to do.
There are many arguments in favor of cultural relativism. One argument in defense of cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument. The cultural differences argument for cultural relativism goes as follows:
Different people have different moral codes
Therefore there is no objective moral truth, because right or wrong varies
by culture.
We can see this in the real world all the time. Some religions, such as the Mormons and Muslims say that it is wrong to drink alchohol. Others, such as the Catholics, give alchohol during religious services. In India, many people marry their first cousins. In the United States, these marriages are frowned upon, or even forbidden, depending on which state you live in. It seems unlikely that there is an objective moral truth hidden in all these different beliefs.
James Rachels, in his work Morality is Not Relative, does not think much of that argument. The argument, he says, is not sound. It is true that people disagree, but “does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree[d], that there is no objective truth?” Clearly, one group or the other could be mistaken. As he points out, many cultures have believed that the world is flat. Others believe that it is round. It would make no sense for somebody to say that there is no objective truth about the shape of the world merely because people disagree over what shape it is.
Rachels’ objection depends on two ideas. The first is that moral truths are the same as other sorts of truths, and can be either right or wrong, not both. The second is that something cannot have two contradictory properties at the same time. It cannot be both true and false, any more than it can be both red and green.
We have no reason to believe that moral truths are the same as other sorts of truths. Unlike ideas about the shape of the earth, we cannot begin to prove that any moral idea is the correct one. We know the earth is round because we have seen it in shape. Before we could leave the earth to view its shape, we sailed around it. Before that, people observed that the shadow cast on the moon is round. We know that the universe is expanding because if it weren’t, the reflected light from stars would fill up all the darkness, and there would be no night. There is no such proof for moral truths, no way to always divine what is the truth about any moral issue.
Some truths are unproveable. It is unlikely that we will ever find a way to prove or disprove the existence of a god, for example, or to measure the exact dimensions of the universe. If Heisenberg is correct, and he appears to be, it is impossible to ever know both the location and the energy of any particle. However, we can prove that the universe has a size, and that particles have both locations and energy. It does not matter whether there is or is not a god, we know that if God exists, He exists outside of our minds. We have no such proof for morality. Morals seem to be in our own minds.
The other idea that Rachels’ argument hinges on is the idea that something cannot have two contradictory properties at once. This seems to make sense, and most people believe that this is true. However, the real world does not always conform to what makes sense. For example, light is both a wave and a particle. This is well-accepted in physics. A particle is finite. Its energy is concentrated into space with definite boundaries, and the contents are the same throughout the particle. Waves are not finite, and their energy is not considered to exist in one place, because waves vary in displacement and in time. If light is both a wave and a particle, then that means that light is both a finite and and infinite entity. This is a contradiction, but that doesn’t matter. Light is considered to be both a wave and a particle, because it has the properties of both, even where they contradict. It is possible, of course, that light is neither, that it is something different that acts like a wave sometimes and like a particle other times, and that our decision that it is both is based on an incomplete understanding of physics. However, there are other things in the real world that seem to be two things at once. Schrodinger’s cat is a good example of this.
Erwin Schrodinger came up with this analogy about superposition in 1935. He said that if you take a cat, and put it in the lead box, you know that it is alive. If you then throw in a vial of cyanide, and seal up the box, you won’t know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box again to check. Therefore, the cat is neither dead nor alive until you check. When you use this analogy with a cat, it seems absurd. Obviously, the cat must be either dead or alive, it can’t be both and it can’t be neither. However, this does occur at the subatomic level. There have been times where a single particle has been observed to be in multiple places at the same time. So if you were asked “is the particle over here, or over there?”, the reality is that it is in both places. To most people, this would seem to make no sense. The particle does have two different, and contradictory properties. It’s both over here, and over there.
Even if we assume that moral truths are the same as other truths about the universe, quantum physics has shown that something can have two contradictory properties at the same time. If it is true that light can be both a wave and a particle, and that a particle can be in two different places at the same time, why do we have any reason to believe that moral truths cannot be both right and wrong?
Cultural relativism makes the most sense because it accurately describes the world in which we live. We might say that moral truths are only relative to individuals, but that would force us to make our own moral decisions, and to not make any sort of moral judgment about others. Instead, people almost invariably agree with their societies on moral issues, and condemn those who disagree. As Herodotus says:
Everyone, without exception, believes his own native customs, and the
religion he was brought up in to be the best.
Those rare individuals within societies who disagree are made to conform by the other people in their respective cultures. Since people will always align their personal moral codes with those set down by society, it is reasonable to say that moral truth is relative to one’s particular culture, and not to individuals.
It's not very good.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-19 09:36 am (UTC)"We know the earth is round because we have seen it in shape. Before we could leave the earth to view its shape, we sailed around it."
...ummm, who's this "we"? I've been told that other people have traveled far enough from the Earth to see its shape; I've seen the pictures they (purportedly) took... and I have no good reason to disbelieve them, but I personally have not experienced the world as being round; I'm only going by what other people have told me. I haven't sailed or flown around the world, either.
I bring this up just because the use of "we" carries a hidden assumption which is not necessarily valid: that the experience of some members of a group is the experience of all members of a group. Of "the group of people reading your paper", how many have personally sailed, flown, or orbited around the Earth? If the answer is "none", then "we" in this context must actually mean "some other, unspecified group of people."
"It does not matter whether there is or is not a god, we know that if God exists, He exists outside of our minds."
Ummmm... leaving aside the "who's 'we'?" question, we don't know that. In order to know that, first would require a working definition of "God", a working definition of "existence", and a clear demarcation between the 'inside' and the 'outside' of one's mind.
Turn it around; say "We exist within the mind of God" - does that put God inside or outside of our minds? It's like saying "The ocean exists outside of the fish"... or, more precisely, it's like a fish saying it.
Your conclusion...
"Cultural relativism makes the most sense because it accurately describes the world in which we live."
... I'm afraid I don't see how that is supported by observable evidence.
"We might say that moral truths are only relative to individuals, but that would force us to make our own moral decisions, and to not make any sort of moral judgment about others."
True enough, and a lot of people do say it. The use of the word "force" here is perjorative - why is it not that that would allow us to make our own moral decisions? Why is it necessary to make moral judgements about others? Can't one say "I don't like that behavior" without having to justify it by claiming that that behavior is wrong?
"Instead, people almost invariably agree with their societies on moral issues, and condemn those who disagree."
No they don't - definitely not in this society, and arguably not in other societies either. Take, for example, adultery. That's a pretty basic "moral issue" in most societies, right? Yet people go on having sex with other peoples' spouses even in societies where doing so is punishable by death. If people "almost invariably agreed" that adultery was wrong, there wouldn't need to be harsh penalties for doing it, because hardly anyone would do it.
"As Herodotus says:
Everyone, without exception, believes his own native customs, and the
religion he was brought up in to be the best."
This is demonstrably untrue. People in all times and places have shown a marked tendency to embrace foreign customs and religions with enthusiasm. Herodotus himself was trying without much success to defend Greek customs and religion from Persian influence.
"Since people will always align their personal moral codes with those set down by society, it is reasonable to say that moral truth is relative to one’s particular culture, and not to individuals."
But people don't always align their personal moral codes with those set down by their society. They may agree that other peoples' moral codes should be aligned with those set down by society, but their own adherence to those codes is mainly a matter of expediency, not true agreement.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-19 05:30 pm (UTC)But we were supposed to use "quotes from the readings" to support our ideas, and that's the ONLY quote that had ANY support for my ideas. So I worked my essay around dear Herodotus and hoped nobody would notice that it's kinda silly.