A Critique of Ethical Relativism. MT Louis P. Pojman. Objectively. Therefore,. Ethical Relativism is the idea that moral rightness & wrongness. Louis Pojman: Against Relativism and For Objectivism conclusion (which denies moral objectivism) must be true. If moral objectivism must be. View Critique of Relativism from BUL at University of Florida. II. 3 A Critique of Ethical Relativism1 Louis Pojman In this article I first analyze the structure of.
|Published (Last):||2 February 2011|
|PDF File Size:||6.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
To see how, just construct another argument with a similar form this is called an argument from analogy:. One person may belong to several societies subcultures with different value emphases and arrangements of principles. So Pojman reasons that if pojmxn is so, and the ethicl for relativism using just P1 as a premise has the same form, then the claim that people differ about moral beliefs does not entail that there is no objective answer about what is right and wrong.
What is the morally right thing for John to do? It seems that we need some higher standard than culture by which to assess a culture. The attack has two stages. In Europe, politeness to a stranger might mean kissing the stranger on both cheeks.
Ethical relativism — the thesis that moral principles derive their validity from dependence on society or individual choice — seems plausible at first glance, but on close scrutiny it presents some severe problems. This move saves the conventionalist from moral solipsism, but it still permits almost any principle at all to count as moral. Pojman must show that one or more of the premises in the argument for relativism is or are false.
Cultural diversity in itself is neutral with respect to theories.
If Murder Mike of Murder, Incorporated feels like killing bank president Ortcutt and wants to feel good about it, he identifies with the Murder, Incorporated society rather than the general-public morality.
If this is all that morality comes to, then why not reject it altogether — relativsim though, to escape sanctions, one might want to adhere to its directives when others are looking?
Louis Pojman: Against Relativism and For Objectivism
Notes History of Herodotus; trans. Thus, there are some objective moral rules. You must be logged in to post a comment. A person may belong to the nation as a single society with certain values of patriotism, honor, courage, and laws including some that are controversial but have majority acceptance, such as the crtiique law on abortion.
A Critique of Ethical Relativism by Maddie Tincher on Prezi
All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. So Pojman allows for P1 to be true, since it does not harm objectivism about morality. Perhaps there is not as much diversity as anthropologists like Sumner and Benedict suppose. But why should we choose to view morality this way? The tribe differs with us only in belief, not in substantive moral principle.
On the other hand, a denial of complete cultural relativism i. We distinguished a weak and a strong thesis of dependency. Conventionalist relativism seems to reduce to etihcal.
In such a case, the conclusion cannot be false. If so, no better argument for that conclusion can be given. Perhaps we might agree for eghical sake of argument, at least that the very nature of morality entails two people who are making an agreement.
If you could, then this argument would be conclusive: Nevertheless, unless moral objectivism can make a positive case for its position, relativism may survive these criticisms. The objectivist could concede complete cultural relativism but still defend a form of universalism; for he or she could argue that some cultures simply lack correct moral principles.
Quine,13 holds that languages are often so fundamentally different from each other that we cannot accurately translate concepts from one to another. Does this justify the killing?
It simply shows that the conclusion could be false. Conclusion Ethical relativism — the thesis that moral principles derive their validity from dependence on society or individual choice — seems plausible at first glance, but on close scrutiny it presents some severe problems.
Relativism would seem to tell us that, if a person belongs to societies with conflicting moralities, then that person must be judge both wrong and not wrong whatever he or she does. We could still imagine a culture that was an exception to the rule and be unable to criticize it. Beliefs about the shape of the Earth differ across cultures — C1. On the other hand, there is enormous cultural diversity, and many societies have radically different moral codes.
We are yet not finished with our critique of conventional ethical relativism. Clearly P2 entails relativism about morality. Now Pojman realizes that the first premise called P1 in the argument for relativism is not objectionable. The major difference between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is not whether we should kill persons but whether fetuses are really persons.
It has lost its action-guiding function. Alas, truth may not always be edifying.
However, though we may fear the demise of morality, as rekativism have known it, this in itself may not be a good reason for rejecting relativism — that is, for judging it false.
And two people cannot be in disagreement about their feelings. There is an even more basic problem with the notion that morality depends on cultural acceptance for its validity. Thus, there is no objective right and wrong.