Meta Ethics Flashcards
(14 cards)
Essay Structure
Philosophical issue, implications in meta ethics and law, thesis statement
Position 1: Moral relativism, cultural relativism, Rai, conducted 2 studies, fallacies to this data, logical fallacies to moral relativism, Roger Scruton
Position 2: Moral Absolutism, Divine Command Theory, limitations to DCT, Euthyphro Dilemma
Compare and Contrast; Explain why Moral relativism is not plausible, explain why Moral Nihilism is also not plausible (it’s implications on law and ethics)
Philosophical Issue
Is morality absolute or relative?
Implications
Moral Relativism: legal system would cease to exist; since it operates on the premise that certain things are correct and certain things are incorrect. Existential implications, different people can have different and distinct ideas about morality — no shared values between people — isolated groups of society, not much connection between people outside of your community — isolation.
Moral Absolutism: Legal System, It provides a clear and consistent ethical framework that guides behaviour and promotes social cohesion, in fact, it is the basis of our legal system.
Existentially, It can foster social harmony within a society, since the people share the same values — it removes a lot of burden for you to be lonely.
Moral Relativism
It is a prescriptive position within meta ethics that argues for the existence of morality, but it is relative.
Difference between Descriptive and Prescriptive
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. (The sky is blue)
A prescriptive statement details how something should be.(You should Brush your teeth)
Cultural Relativism
We will first explore cultural relativism which is descriptive— it describes that ideas of right or wrong can be be understood only within a particular culture or social context; in other words, right and wrong means “right for a given society” and “wrong for a given society”, while what is right and wrong in one society may differ from what is right and wrong in another society.
Leap from Cultural Relativism to Moral Relativism
Given this description about the phenomena of cultural relativism, a moral relativist would argue that we must respect divergence in moral practice — it is wrong for one society to impose its ideas of right and wrong on another. This prescriptive position about how we should act given the phenomenon of cultural relativism is called moral relativism.
Keith and Rai
Keith and Rai conducted two studies in 2013 which found that participants were more likely to engage in immoral behaviour when exposed to moral relativism compared to moral absolutism. This is a blow to the practicality for moral relativism — by advocating for moral relativism, according to this study; we would have less order within our world.
Fallacies of data
This data does have fallacies which is the defining of “immoral behaviour”, by defining certain actions as “immoral behaviour”, we are putting ourselves in a position of moral absolutism; which limits the validity of the claims about the data. This however, still doesn’t change the fact that these “immoral behaviours” are bad by our current standards of morality.
Limitations and Roger Scruton
The prescriptive position of moral relativism looks promising on the surface, but it has serious logical fallacies; it claims that all of morality is relative and none is universally applicable. However, if this is true, then the claim itself should not be universally applicable; if claim that all of morality is relative is false, then there also does exist a claim that’s universally applicable. Either ways, there exists a claim that’s universally applicable — a contradiction.
As Roger Scruton would put it “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is “merely relative” is asking you not to believe him. So don’t”.
Moral Absolutism
A better take on morality would be that morality is absolute — Morality is completely independent of context and cultural practices or personal beliefs. What is right in one case is right in all cases regardless of the circumstances.
Divine Command Theory
If god exists, then the objectivity of moral duties and moral accountability is secured. However, in the absence of god, then morality is just a human convention — morality is wholly subjective and non-binding.
If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.
Limitations and Euthyphro Dilemma
The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?
If it is the first case, then there is goodness that is determined independently of god; which undermines the Divine Command Theory.
if it is the second case, then isn’t god a dictator? If god is a dictator, why can’t he say that murder is good? To which William Lain Craig responds with “god is by definition intrinsically good, therefore he wouldn’t command something like murder”. However, this response has circular logic within it — god is good because god is good.
Compare and Contrast
Compare and Contrast,
Moral relativism — it is logically incoherent.
Moral Nihilism — Affects our world negatively too much (lack of morality).
Explain why Moral absolutism is more plausible — universal declaration of human rights, common social norms as loving your children, not cheating.
Although there are some issues with Craig’s response to the Euthyphro dilemma, it is outweighed by its positive implications on law.
