Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Descriptive Moral Relativism: as

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Descriptive Moral Relativism: as a matter of an empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be Data collected by anthropologists and sociologists on different cultures  moral values seem to be different in different societies Examples: Inuit (natives of Northern Canada and Alaska) believed that it was appropriate to abandon their elders when they could no longer travel with the group Women in some countries cannot wear short skirts and they are required to cover their legs and hair

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Metaethical Moral Relativism: The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons For example, “polygamy is morally wrong” may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Ethical Relativism: (DMR) there are no universal accepted ethical standards  (MMR) there is no objective right and wrong Ethics is not science (although even the foundation of science is far more complex than it appears at first. For example David Hume recognized the difficulties related to the fact that our knowledge of the world is based on the experiences we have by senses: the fact that the sun raised every morning as far as we know does not imply that it will necessarily raise tomorrow as well, although it is highly probable  from certainty to high probability)

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Two subfields of ethical relativism: Individual Ethical Relativism: ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes individual persons Social or Cultural Ethical Relativism: ethical values vary from society to society and the basis for moral judgments lies in these social or cultural views

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Reasons for supporting Ethical Relativism: The diversity of moral views: there is a disagreement on basic moral values or principles among philosophers who are studying ethics

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Reasons for supporting Ethical Relativism: 2) Moral uncertainty: sometimes we don’t know what is the most important thing to do when we face conflicts between different moral values. For example, in a case where these two moral values are clashing is it better to help a friend or to be honest? Besides, usually we are unable to understand and fully evaluate what are the consequences of different courses of action

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Reasons for supporting Ethical Relativism: 3) Situational differences: people and cultures differ in significant ways across times and spaces  different circumstances (for example, in one place there is a problem of overpopulation, in another the problem is drought, in other places the standard of living is high) may lead to different moral values

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Is it real disagreement? One thing is a disagreement about moral values, another thing is disagreement about factual beliefs (for example, we may agree on the moral value that we ought not harm, but disagree on the factual belief whether CO2 emissions harm and therefore reach different moral conclusions one stating that we ought to reduce emissions and the other stating that we need not to reduce emissions)

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Relativism, skepticism and subjectivism Skepticism: it is impossible to know something  does uncertainty prove necessarily the lack of an answer? Subjectivism: we can never see things as they are, but only as they appear from our own perspective  Our struggle to understand what we don’t know and to compare different moral values may imply that in any case what we are looking for and what we believe in is that there is way for making a better choice

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Do dramatic differences in people’s life situations make it unlikely or impossible for them to have any common morality? It may be that values like justice are shared by everyone, but applied differently by different cultures in different situations Absolutism: moral rules or principles have no exceptions and are context independent (for example, stealing is wrong (remember Kant) even if a person is starving to death  an objectivist who is not an absolutist may argue that there are exceptions to the rule that stealing is wrong when more important values - like the preservation of life - are involved)

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Moral realism Realism: there exists a reality independent of those who know it Moral Objectivism Moral judgments are ordinarily true or false in an absolute or universal sense; some of them are true and people sometimes are justified in accepting true moral judgments (and rejecting false ones) on the basis of evidence available to any reasonable and well-informed person. In other words, there exists objective moral values that are recognized as binding by different groups across spaces and times (although the norms governing the application of these values may differ) Moral pluralism Is there only one good or many?

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Are cultures discrete, homogenous and static entities like a Mondrian painting? Or they interact, influence one another and change over time like a Pollok painting?

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Naturalistic Fallacy (Hume, Moore): it is not possible to derive an “ought” from an “is” For example, Homosexuality is not natural (descriptive premise) Therefore you ought not to be homosexual (normative conclusion) This syllogism does not work because there is a further hidden normative premise: what is not-natural ought to be bad OR (only) what is natural ought to be good

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Therefore the real syllogism works in this way: Hidden Normative Premise: What is not natural is bad OR (only) what is natural is good Descriptive Premise: Homosexuality is not natural Normative Conclusion: Homosexuality is bad

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism LET’S ANALYSE THE HIDDEN NORMATIVE PREMISE (What is not-natural is bad OR (Only) what is natural is good) Are we sure that what is natural is good? For example, think about earthquakes, or animals who kill puppies of other species and even of their own Are we sure that what is not natural is bad? For example, think about man flying on airplanes, death postponed thanks to organ transplants, and also something like the practice of male circumcision for religious reasons by Muslims, Jews and for (maybe) personal health by non-religious persons I put the word (“only”) in parenthesis because a statement like “only what is natural ought to be good” will destroy any artificial human advancement

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism NOTICE: This does not mean that what is natural is bad and what is not natural is good! This simply means that when we judge what is natural as good or bad we do it on the basis of normative preferences that are expressing the values we endorse. But these values do not derive from nature, but from moral systems (like religion, culture, reason…)

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Resuming, the Naturalistic Fallacy does not apply to the case of homosexuality only. It is a general rule stating that from a descriptive premise (is) it is not possible to infer a normative conclusion (ought). Usually, there is a hidden normative premise.

Absolutism, Objectivism and Relativism Concluding, notice that many moral systems start from descriptions of the world, but: Different descriptions may be contested (for example, CO2 emissions harm VS Co2 emissions do not harm) In case we agree on the descriptive premise, there is also a normative premise we need to agree on in order to infer a normative conclusion (for example, DESCRIPTIVE PREMISE CO2 emissions harm, NORMATIVE PREMISE we ought not to harm, NORMATIVE CONCLUSION therefore we ought to reduce CO2 emissions) One thing is to speak about Human Nature (something fixed forever and equal for everyone), another thing is to speak about Human Condition (something that depends on the actual circumstances we live in)