3 reasons many people embrace Cultural diversity
1. They value diversity
2. They think cultural imperialism is bad
3. They believe that cultural Relativism will preserve the integrity of diverse cultures from the threat of cultural imperialism.
Does cultural Relativism offer a basis for promoting tolerance of cultural differences and opposing cultural imperialism?
Every society has to set a rule when it is acceptable to kill some members.
5 claims of cultural relativism
1. Different cultures have different moral codes
2. These codes determine what is right within a given society (if the code says its right then the action is just within that society 3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge ones societys code asbetter than anothers. There is no unviversal truth in ethics that hold forall people at all times 4. The moral code for our own society has no special status; it is one code among many 5. It is arrogant to judge the conduct of others society we should adapt an attitude of tolerance towords cultures
Moral relativism- there is no one,correct morality. People have different views of morality and no view is better than another. These differing moral frameworks cannot be resolved into a single, correct, morality.
Moral Absolutism- there exists a single, true morality that applies to all people at al times.
Moral Nihilism-Morality lacks any truth at all ( relative or absolute)
1. Moral diversity exists
2. Moral Realativism is the best explanation of moral diversity 3. Therefore, Moral Relativism is true
Inference to best explanation
1. Some people are not adequately placed to rcognize the absolute moral truth 2. This is better explanation for moral diversity than moral relativism 3. Therefore, moral relativism isnot best explanation
4. So, moral relativism is not true
Harmans response to absolutists argument
1. There exist many similarities between morality and mothion 2. Motion is relative
3. Therefore, morality is relative too
1. Suffering is bad
2. If you can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, you are morally required to do so. 3. The loss of non essential goods is not comparably morally important to suffering 4. Therefore, if you can give up non essential items to prevent suffering, you are required to do so 5. You can give up luxury items to prevent suffering
6. Thus you should give up all luxury items to prevent suffering
Fair share view
1. If everyone gave $20 to aid agencies, then the most good that could be done to prevent suffering would be done 2. If singers second premise is true, and a person must give more than $20 this is because someone did not give their fare share. 3. It is unfair to make one person do more to make up for the moral shortcoming of others 4. Therefore, singers second premise is unfair
The “pure” divine command theory of Ethics (DCT)
Definition: The whole of molarity is determined entirely and exclusively by gods decrees (and gods will). Things are god because God has decreed them so and for no other reason whatsoever.
Note:DCT is not a theory about the content of morality ( what is right) but is a theory about the foundations of morality ( what makes things right)
ContrastClaim PC with DCT
PC (provident Command): everything that god commands is right
DCT: Everything that god commands is morally right just because god commands it
One can accept PC, but not imply DCT. Every traditiomal theist accepts PC, but not all accept DCT ( in fact, the vast mokority do not accept DCT
Thw arbitrariness problem:
1. If DCT true God’s decrees are arbitrary
2. An arbitrary God is not worthy of our worship and praise 3. Therefore, if DCT is true God is not worth of our worship and praise ( and thus is not God)
Please join StudyMode to read the full document