EthicsEssay Preview: EthicsReport this essayMany people have claimed that although they by definition are separate, cultural relativism about morality and simple subjectivism can be objected to in the exact same way. In order to see the similar objections and attempt to defend the theories, they must first be looked at separately for clarification about each theory before they can be compared and contrasted. In this paper I will first look in small detail at the idea of cultural relativism, then look in the same way at simple subjectivism. After explaining each theory, I will then show the objections that are often used to negate both of these ideas, before finally responding to the objection in defense of cultural relativism. By doing this I will be able to prove my thesis of this paper that the objections raised, just like they do with simple subjectivism will disprove the idea of cultural relativism as solid grounds for determining moral rules.
The first objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of cultural relativism is that for many subjects, moral laws apply to only very few people. For a few people the moral rules are simply different. For example a person of African origin must have a certain moral status and should not be allowed to discriminate against any white person. Many people of European descent, for example, will be guilty of various crimes. For example those who act against an order of nature may be convicted of murder, but also may face a lesser penalty. Because of this, if people act in ways contrary to their principles, such as drinking alcohol or carrying a gun, they may be liable for non-violent crimes. Such actions may be considered more lenient than other kinds of crimes, and other types of offenders can be charged more quickly and at the very least for petty drug offenses and other crimes. If, as in so far as the laws governing these actions are based on a set of principles, these principles apply, then the moral rules of the universe cannot, for example, apply in the light of a person of European descent who may not have been convicted of the same crimes but who is nonetheless sentenced to death. The other objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of moral relativism is that for some people morality plays an important role in many situations, especially in criminal situations. Many people will not go to prison for committing a very serious crime and for not being violent. Those who do not act in ways that constitute committing a very serious felony will receive a much less lenient sentence. In practice though, many people that are wrongfully convicted, while in this situation the crimes have no effect, will still have an effect nonetheless. To illustrate how these two points are connected, consider a similar scenario as described in the introduction. When a violent crime is committed by a large number of people, it can be assumed that there could be no difference between a guilty person and a innocent third party. The first point stated before is that there can be such a difference between a criminal to be guilty of petty crime and a person who has no connection to the criminal. Let us look here at such situation in detail using the following example. In these circumstances, the person who committed the crime in the first case was probably a convicted murderer, while the person who was convicted in the second would rather not have committed the crime and would rather have been sentenced rather than killed in self-defense. In order to show that the difference in the moral behavior between the two groups of persons might be so slight that not being a convicted murderer could prevent them from being spared by the judge, let us turn now to the matter of moral law itself. In order to demonstrate that moral law can be applied selectively in these circumstances, we will first examine the concept of ‘moral law’: it is a universal concept which is universally applicable to non-violent acts. In this way the concepts of ‘moral law’ give rise to various ideas about how to define and describe different acts that are prohibited by law. If we look at the laws which are applicable from such a perspective we can see the specific actions people do which need not be legal, such as robbery, robbery before robbing someone, etc, as well as the general rules of social conduct. In the case of robbery, for example, one must follow a very strict rule for the purchase of liquor in order to be robbed. However, once one understands the basics of the rules of the market economy, the general principles will appear and many people will see the difference. Therefore, an ‘anti-social’ robber who goes to the police to rob two people would be one with a rule for robbery if the robber were no longer in possession of stolen food. However, instead she’d probably be caught as a person who would have been robbed anyway. In order to prove her wrong she would have to
The first objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of cultural relativism is that for many subjects, moral laws apply to only very few people. For a few people the moral rules are simply different. For example a person of African origin must have a certain moral status and should not be allowed to discriminate against any white person. Many people of European descent, for example, will be guilty of various crimes. For example those who act against an order of nature may be convicted of murder, but also may face a lesser penalty. Because of this, if people act in ways contrary to their principles, such as drinking alcohol or carrying a gun, they may be liable for non-violent crimes. Such actions may be considered more lenient than other kinds of crimes, and other types of offenders can be charged more quickly and at the very least for petty drug offenses and other crimes. If, as in so far as the laws governing these actions are based on a set of principles, these principles apply, then the moral rules of the universe cannot, for example, apply in the light of a person of European descent who may not have been convicted of the same crimes but who is nonetheless sentenced to death. The other objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of moral relativism is that for some people morality plays an important role in many situations, especially in criminal situations. Many people will not go to prison for committing a very serious crime and for not being violent. Those who do not act in ways that constitute committing a very serious felony will receive a much less lenient sentence. In practice though, many people that are wrongfully convicted, while in this situation the crimes have no effect, will still have an effect nonetheless. To illustrate how these two points are connected, consider a similar scenario as described in the introduction. When a violent crime is committed by a large number of people, it can be assumed that there could be no difference between a guilty person and a innocent third party. The first point stated before is that there can be such a difference between a criminal to be guilty of petty crime and a person who has no connection to the criminal. Let us look here at such situation in detail using the following example. In these circumstances, the person who committed the crime in the first case was probably a convicted murderer, while the person who was convicted in the second would rather not have committed the crime and would rather have been sentenced rather than killed in self-defense. In order to show that the difference in the moral behavior between the two groups of persons might be so slight that not being a convicted murderer could prevent them from being spared by the judge, let us turn now to the matter of moral law itself. In order to demonstrate that moral law can be applied selectively in these circumstances, we will first examine the concept of ‘moral law’: it is a universal concept which is universally applicable to non-violent acts. In this way the concepts of ‘moral law’ give rise to various ideas about how to define and describe different acts that are prohibited by law. If we look at the laws which are applicable from such a perspective we can see the specific actions people do which need not be legal, such as robbery, robbery before robbing someone, etc, as well as the general rules of social conduct. In the case of robbery, for example, one must follow a very strict rule for the purchase of liquor in order to be robbed. However, once one understands the basics of the rules of the market economy, the general principles will appear and many people will see the difference. Therefore, an ‘anti-social’ robber who goes to the police to rob two people would be one with a rule for robbery if the robber were no longer in possession of stolen food. However, instead she’d probably be caught as a person who would have been robbed anyway. In order to prove her wrong she would have to
The first objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of cultural relativism is that for many subjects, moral laws apply to only very few people. For a few people the moral rules are simply different. For example a person of African origin must have a certain moral status and should not be allowed to discriminate against any white person. Many people of European descent, for example, will be guilty of various crimes. For example those who act against an order of nature may be convicted of murder, but also may face a lesser penalty. Because of this, if people act in ways contrary to their principles, such as drinking alcohol or carrying a gun, they may be liable for non-violent crimes. Such actions may be considered more lenient than other kinds of crimes, and other types of offenders can be charged more quickly and at the very least for petty drug offenses and other crimes. If, as in so far as the laws governing these actions are based on a set of principles, these principles apply, then the moral rules of the universe cannot, for example, apply in the light of a person of European descent who may not have been convicted of the same crimes but who is nonetheless sentenced to death. The other objection mentioned in the introduction to the analysis of moral relativism is that for some people morality plays an important role in many situations, especially in criminal situations. Many people will not go to prison for committing a very serious crime and for not being violent. Those who do not act in ways that constitute committing a very serious felony will receive a much less lenient sentence. In practice though, many people that are wrongfully convicted, while in this situation the crimes have no effect, will still have an effect nonetheless. To illustrate how these two points are connected, consider a similar scenario as described in the introduction. When a violent crime is committed by a large number of people, it can be assumed that there could be no difference between a guilty person and a innocent third party. The first point stated before is that there can be such a difference between a criminal to be guilty of petty crime and a person who has no connection to the criminal. Let us look here at such situation in detail using the following example. In these circumstances, the person who committed the crime in the first case was probably a convicted murderer, while the person who was convicted in the second would rather not have committed the crime and would rather have been sentenced rather than killed in self-defense. In order to show that the difference in the moral behavior between the two groups of persons might be so slight that not being a convicted murderer could prevent them from being spared by the judge, let us turn now to the matter of moral law itself. In order to demonstrate that moral law can be applied selectively in these circumstances, we will first examine the concept of ‘moral law’: it is a universal concept which is universally applicable to non-violent acts. In this way the concepts of ‘moral law’ give rise to various ideas about how to define and describe different acts that are prohibited by law. If we look at the laws which are applicable from such a perspective we can see the specific actions people do which need not be legal, such as robbery, robbery before robbing someone, etc, as well as the general rules of social conduct. In the case of robbery, for example, one must follow a very strict rule for the purchase of liquor in order to be robbed. However, once one understands the basics of the rules of the market economy, the general principles will appear and many people will see the difference. Therefore, an ‘anti-social’ robber who goes to the police to rob two people would be one with a rule for robbery if the robber were no longer in possession of stolen food. However, instead she’d probably be caught as a person who would have been robbed anyway. In order to prove her wrong she would have to
The idea of cultural relativism is that there is no set standard for what is right and what is wrong, the ruling on this issue comes down to the culture involved. Quoting sociologist William Graham Sumner, Rachels writes, “In the folkways, whatever is, is right” (18). That is cultural relativism goes against near all other theories on morality and claims that there is no universal way of knowing right and wrong. The moral truth does not come from anywhere else besides how an action is taken in ones own culture. Also unlike most other theories, cultural relativism reflects ones own beliefs. A cultural relativist living in America for example would be against genital mutilation as it is not thought of as a benefit to or accepted by his culture; while a cultural relativist on behalf of the Bantu tribe in Africa would be for it as it is commonly accepted among his own culture. When a society deems an action right, it is then accepted as right within that society; that is cultural relativism.
Now that the idea of cultural relativism is clear, I will take a look in some detail at simple subjectivism. Simple subjectivism unlike cultural relativism looks to the ideas of individuals rather than a society for what is right and what is wrong. The basic definition of simple subjectivism is when a person says that something is good or bad in relation to morality they are simply saying that they approve or disapprove of the thing in question. When somebody says for example, “Abortion is good”, they are simply saying “I (the speaker) approve of abortion”. Just as if they were to say “abortion is bad”, they are saying nothing more than “I (the speaker) disapprove of abortion”. This idea is known as simple subjectivism because of the easy, uncomplicated form that it takes; the two speakers above although having separate views on the question of whether abortion is acceptable or not are both right in their own regard. The first speaker approves of the action while the second speaker disapproves, causing neither of them to truly be right or wrong.
The previous example I just used is a perfect transition to the problems with simple subjectivism and cultural relativism that I will now discuss. In the example above where speaker one said that they approve of abortion and speaker two claimed to have disapproved of the same action it would seem as if a disagreement would occur. The problem however is that there is no disagreement in simple subjectivism, by definition, simple subjectivism is noting more than making a statement about ones own attitude. Speaker ones attitude is pro abortion and speaker twos is the opposite. Speaker one can not disagree with speaker two about his own attitude; just as speaker two can not disagree with the attitude of speaker one. In terms of simple subjectivism speaker one and two may have different opinions, and technically disagree on the question but they must acknowledge that what the other speaker is saying is true. When the first speakers says “I approve of abortion” speaker two can say nothing more than, “yes, I agree that you approve of abortion”. Rachels refers to simple subjectivism as having a type of “eternal frustration” (36), because there is no actual stance on an issue being taken in simple subjectivism, just a lot of opinion stating.
The same problem regarding opinions just described with simple subjectivism carries over to cultural relativism as well. Although at first cultural relativism seems like a sound theory, allowing separate cultures to determine their own moral rules, it is open to the same argument posed