Ethical relativism

Philosopher Stephen Satris (1986) argues that the ethical relativism of most college students is intended not as a well-thought-out philosophical theory but as an “invincible suit of armor” to “prevent or close off dialogue and thought.” Do you agree with Satris’ thoughts on relativism and students? Relate your answer to the concept of relativism that is discussed in the course materials in this week’s module. Discuss an instance when you, or someone else, used relativism as a means of ending a discussion on a moral issue. What are the costs of using relativism during ethical and moral discussions? Are there any benefits? Supplemental info: Moral theory: if given the choice many people would rather skip moral theory and get on with discussions of real-life moral issues. Theory is often contrasted with action – this is a false dichotomy, since it is theory that informs our actions. What is a theory? It is a conceptual framework for explaining a set of facts or concepts. It explains why a certain action – such as torturing babies-is wrong and why we ought to act in certain ways and be a certain type of person. Theory helps us clarify, analyze, and rank the moral concerns raised by particular moral issues. Moral theories are like road maps – a good theory offers guidance or signposts for thinking about and resolving moral issues. A moral theory, like a road map, makes it more likely that we will reach our destination with the least amount of wrong turns and aggravation. Like maps, not all are equally good. Some leave out too much, some lead us down dead ends. Knowing about the strengths and weaknesses of the different moral theories can save us from heading down these dead ends! What are the grounds and sources of morality? Argue morality is grounded in an unchanging spiritual realm, others hold that it is grounded in human convention and some believe in human physiology. Others maintain morality is invented by people, others believe it is driven by selfishness, and some believe it is an expression of mere emotions. Two types of moral theories: 1) Those that claim that morality is relative 2) Those that claim that morality is universal Moral relativists claim that people create morality & there are no universal or shared moral principles that apply to all people.  Is morality a matter of universal values that everyone shares objectively across time and space?  Or is morality a matter of values, about which we can only have personal opinions, and is subjective? Two types of relativism: Is Morality Relative to Individuals or relative to Cultures?  Subjective relativism: morality created by, relative to, the people who hold the beliefs.  Cultural relativism: morality or ethical values are created by cultures, influenced by societal norms rather than the opinions of individuals. Are there moral truths such as it is wrong to torture children that do not require proof? Are there any other self-evident moral truths? If these moral truths are self-evident, how would you respond to someone who believes that it is morally acceptable to torture children or to treat other humans as morally inferior? Acts that are unethical in-and-of themselves Action to be unethical, it must inherently deny another person or creature some inalienable right. 1. Inalienable – cannot be taken away or violated 2. What fundamental (universal) unethical acts can we agree upon? 3. Slavery, Genocide, Torture, Murder, Assault, Rape What it is not: • It is not an ethics of tolerance. Tolerance is a universal moral principle; however a relativist can not support it because any kind of universals does not exist. Example of relativism in action: • You may feel that racism is wrong; I may feel that white supremacy is morally right. • The rightness or wrongness of my action depends solely on how I feel about racism. • I feel racism is right • Therefore terrorizing students of color on campus is morally commendable and perhaps even morally obligatory so long as I feel that what I’m doing is right. • If morality is simply a matter of personal opinion, there is no point in trying to use rational arguments to convince the racist that what he/she did was wrong. • No one can ever be mistaken about what is morally correct or incorrect. • It permits people to exploit and hurt others without having to justify their actions.