SLIDE 1 The Epistemic Status of Normative Statements
Knowledge vs. Beliefs only Fact-Value Distinction (Is-ought)
- - Descriptive Statements (facts)
- - Normative Statements (values)
SLIDE 2
The Fact-Value Distinction
Descriptive statements (facts): True or false, not both T and F at the same
time.
Normative (moral) statements (values): Appear to be both T and F at the same time.
SLIDE 3 Ethical Relativism
- E. R. is the view that moral (normative)
statements are not objectively true, but “true” relative to a particular individual or society that happens to hold the belief.
All moral statements are beliefs only. Moral knowledge is impossible.
SLIDE 4
Ethical Objectivism
Moral statements are objective and universal. Moral knowledge is possible.
SLIDE 5
An Operational Definition of Ethical Relativism:
Whenever two people or two societies
disagree about the morality of an action (i.e., hold different and opposing views), both sides are equally correct.
SLIDE 6 Arguments for Ethical Relativism
- 1. Diversity of Moral Views argument
The fact of disagreement and/or differences
in moral beliefs is evidence for the claim that
Ruth Benedict
SLIDE 7 Argument from the Diversity of moral views
- 1. If people disagree about some claim, then
that claim is subjective and relative.
- 2. People do disagree about moral claims.
- 3. Therefore, moral claims are subjective &
relative, i.e., E.R. is true (both side sides are equally
correct).
SLIDE 8 Arguments for Ethical Relativism
- 2. Moral Uncertainty argument
The fact that I do not know for certain in a
given situation what is right implies that ethical relativism is true.
Ethical Dilemmas Relativism based on Skepticism
SLIDE 9
- 2. Analysis of Moral Uncertainty argument
Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance Skepticism
SLIDE 10 Arguments for Ethical Relativism
- 3. Situational Differences Argument
Given the many differences in particular
circumstances, what we call morality must be relative to the particular situation.
SLIDE 11
- 3. Situational Differences Argument
- 1. There are no absolute or universal moral
rules.
- 2. Therefore, all moral rules must be relative.
SLIDE 12
- 3. Analysis of Situational Differences Argument
This argument confuses Objectivism with
Absolutism.
Absolutism: one set of absolute moral rules
that apply in all places and at all times.
Objectivism: some moral claims are objective
and universal, but particulars may vary.
SLIDE 13 Arguments for Ethical Relativism
- 4. Toleration of Differences Argument
Tolerance for differences is consistent with
ethical relativism.
E.R. promotes tolerance. Objectivism promotes dogmatism/
intolerance.
SLIDE 14
- 4. Analysis of Argument from
Toleration
This position is contradictory.
SLIDE 15 The Contradiction in E.R.
- 1. “Right” means “right for a given society.”
- 2. It is wrong for people in one society to
interfere with the values of another society.
- 3. But 2 is understood in a non-relativist
sense, and therefore contradicts 1.
SLIDE 16
Ethical Relativism is counter- intuitive
X is moral = I like X. X is moral and not moral. Implications: Can never talk about actions. Can never be mistaken about morality. Can change morality by changing my mind. Can never really disagree about morality.
SLIDE 17
E.R. is counter-intuitive
X is moral = My society likes X. All of the aforementioned implications. +I cannot disagree with my own society.
