23 Virtue Ethics continued

In the former lecture I said : The big difference of approach in theories of ethics here is clear: “What is the right action?” is a significantly different question to ask from “How should I live?

What kind of person should I be?” , referring to consequentialist and deontological theories on the on hand, and virtue ethics on the other hand.

Such a question presupposes an explicit philosophy of psychology, an answer to the question: how is the inner person "constructed".

You only can do psychological research in moral behavior if you for instance assume that a person has a knowledge of good and evil.

Although Aristotle In the first book of the Ethica Nicomachea warns us that the study of ethics is imprecise, he has a clear and precise idea about the base of our ability to moral behavior.

He assumed, that the function of man is reason and the life that is distinctive of humans is the life in accordance with reason. If the function of man is reason, then the good man is the man who reasons well.

Reason is the human quality that shows us how true virtue requires choice, understanding, and knowledge. Virtue is a settled and purposive disposition.

So when someone has the virtue of compassionate it means, that he will act accordingly, since having the virtuous inner dispositions will also involve being moved to act in accordance with them.

Moral education and development are a major part of virtue ethics. There are a number of factors that may affect one’s character development,

such as one’s parents, teachers, peer group, role-models, the degree of encouragement and attention one receives, and exposure to different situations.

Our natural tendencies, the raw material we are born with, are shaped and developed through a long and gradual process of education and habituation.

Thus moral standards by education. Yet moral relativism one could say. However these standards are related to our natural tendencies. Compassion could be regarded as a general human trait, but the resulting moral action will depend on the given cultural context.

But if the morality of a person is so closely connected with his education of character, we have to face a serious problem, for not everyone is in the lucky position of receiving a good education, for instance.

Do we then have to conclude that not everyone is equally morally responsible for his actions? That is counterintuitive.

When you have killed someone on purpose, you are a murderer, even though your moral education wasn't that good.

Thus we can get trapped between intuition and fact. The intuition is that luck must not make moral differences. Whether you studied at a university or only 'graduated' from primary school can not affect what a person is morally responsible of.

However, the fact is that luck does seem to make moral differences. You were lucky to be born in a wealthy and educated family. The other person wasn't and that was out of his control.

I won't resolve this problem here, but just refer to what we can experience very day and then ask yourself what you would decide.

It is a fact that verdicts in Court often take into account the background (-lack of- education e.g) to decide on the punishment. Just think about it.

This is the present landscape of modern theories of ethics: deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is closest to the psychology of the person.

As it was clear from the beginning, there is no such thing as THE definite theory of ethics. Each of us has to find his way through this landscape and weigh all arguments.

Final lecture of this project will be on Ethics and Pragmatism. Will it bring us new insights?


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: thank you
[13:18] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark..feel free...
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: i am glad to hear it is closest to our psychology
[13:19] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: rather then the other two
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds better too lol
[13:19] herman Bergson: the other theories do hardly take the person into account
[13:19] oola Neruda: i have been amazed in this world how sometimes the poorest of people can be the most moral... unlike what Weil and Brecht emphasize
[13:19] herman Bergson: there are just rules...
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:19] herman Bergson: or consequences...whether we are machines, robots or human beings
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: agree, oola
[13:20] herman Bergson: If the apply to us they apply to us
[13:20] oola Neruda: adversity often results in learning compassion
[13:20] herman Bergson: Well...that is a point...
[13:21] herman Bergson: morality is based on character acoording to virtue ethics..
[13:21] herman Bergson: doesnt matter what or who you are
[13:21] oola Neruda: right
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:21] herman Bergson: you need the insight and the wisdom and experience of life
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: wonder if adversity is necessary for full moral development
[13:22] herman Bergson: these are closely connected with this theory of ethics
[13:22] Alarice Beaumont: what about a person to look up to?
[13:22] herman Bergson: adversity?
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: oh, what oola said above got me thinking
[13:22] herman Bergson: a role model Alarice?
[13:23] Alarice Beaumont: that would be something..
[13:23] herman Bergson: ah...adversoity...bad times...
[13:23] herman Bergson: well...as I child I sometimes heard adults say, when they observed immoral behavior, it should be wartime again...
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: oh!
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: i rather meant a person who really is - in most eyes - good.. and little one try to be like this one
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: hmmmm....
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: oh
[13:24] herman Bergson: yes..the idea that adversity brings a man back to his basics
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes Alarice...that is one of the learning ideas of virtue ethics
[13:25] herman Bergson: To say something more...
[13:25] herman Bergson: Margaret Anscombe was a zealous defender of catholicism
[13:26] herman Bergson: and a christian idea is that the perosn of Jesus is THE role model of a virtuous man
[13:26] herman Bergson: so there is not only the link with Aristotelian thinking
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: interesting, yes, an ax to grind
[13:27] herman Bergson: for what do you want to use that ax Repose?
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: not sure, Prof
[13:27] herman Bergson smiles
[13:27] herman Bergson: I already got a bit nervous
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: oh, I'm harmless
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: really
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: ah but an ax is not
[13:28] herman Bergson: ah...good
[13:28] Alarice Beaumont: ^^
[13:28] herman Bergson: anyway....
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: she started a revolution in ethics, sounds like
[13:28] herman Bergson: Next lecture I want to look into Pragmatism....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: people like that often have strong commitments
[13:29] herman Bergson: and I still have an intuition that we should look up Frankena too again
[13:29] herman Bergson: pieces of a puzzle
[13:29] herman Bergson: You find the lecture on Frankena in the blog
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:30] Zinzi Serevi: ok
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: !
[13:30] herman Bergson: I have a feeling that a combination of Frankena, virtue ethics and pragmatism might lead to some coherent theory
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: oh, be interesting to see...
[13:31] herman Bergson: Dont know what you all think about it, but that is my feeling
[13:31] herman Bergson: You are rather quiet today
[13:31] Zinzi Serevi: its new for me
[13:32] herman Bergson: Ah Gemma found my present
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: very nice
[13:32] Zinzi Serevi: so i want to listen the first time..:)
[13:32] herman Bergson: Outside you can see it in action...
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: it is lovely
[13:32] herman Bergson: you are free to take a copy....and cheer up your place with spring flowers
[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: thanks
[13:33] : Repose Lionheart raises hand
[13:33] herman Bergson: when you rezz it...just put it in edit mode and follow the instructions of the blue menu
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: is it many prims?
[13:34] herman Bergson: keepin mind that you have no greater distance between pooint than 10m
[[13:34] herman Bergson: one little prim Gemma
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: oh good
[13:35] herman Bergson: the llSetPos() instruction only supports movements shorter than 10m
[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: thanks very much Herman :-))
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes it does
[13:35] herman Bergson: My pleasure
[13:35] herman Bergson: Repose?
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: ummm...no idea why my hand is up
[13:35] herman Bergson: A question?
[13:35] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: good thing it's not the one with the ax init
[13:35] herman Bergson: press shift arrow
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: shift arrow
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:36] herman Bergson: instructions are on the wall behind you
[13:36] herman Bergson: shift right arrow
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:36] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again
[13:36] Qwark Allen: thank you herman´
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: thank YOU professor
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday then

13 A grand total

12 lectures ago we started a quest in Modern Theories of Ethics. We already have seen a number of ways to deal with ethics and moral judgement and in the first lecture is said:

…... to find any coherence in all this, to find an answer on the question "What should I do?" , not just a personal answer, but a kind of generally accepted and justified answer, that will be a huge enterprise.

And now I feel the need to take stock of what insights we have come to so far. Is there emerging some general conclusion. Is there some growing insight of our heading and will we find a haven?


Just for the record: 'haven' is a nice word expressing exactly what we might be looking for. The nice thing about the word is, that it is a Dutch…. the dutch word for 'port'. Must have slipped into the English dictionary in the 16th or 17th century :-)

I think there is already one interesting thing which may help us defining our position: is ethics an individual responsibility, ethics as conceptually justified or is ethics embedded and defined by the social framework we live in.

Here I think of a contraposition of a philosopher like Kant with his Categorical Imperative against cultural relativism also read as moral relativism.

From the lecture on moral relativism I want to store in memory at least the view of Philippa Foot (1978). She holds that words like 'good' or 'rude' or 'brave' not only have an evaluative content, but also a descriptive content.

That means that moral judgements can have truth-value, which means that they can be rationally evaluated. Here I see a link with the "moral point of view" idea of William Frankena.

In lecture 3 I already mentioned the Golden Rule as an example of a moral judgement, that is found in almost all cultures. In my latest lecture I related that idea with the phenomenon of reciprocity, which you see in social behavior of primates.

So my conclusion was that moral relativism or moral subjectivism was not a tenable option. This means that we have to move on to some kind of objectivism in the theory of ethics. The truth or falsity of a moral judgement is not just depending on one's personal opinion.

Here we have reached the quintessential question of ethics: how can we justify an objective (which means: not entirely depended of an individual mind) base for morality. I have committed myself to that.

This opened doors to sociobiology and evolutionary theory in relation to our understanding of human nature and how morality can be a part of human behavior.

That was the moment that I introduced the idea of the "personal philosophical program". That means, that you adopt a number of theories or arguments and regard them as yours.

You don't question their origin but you take it as your philosophical program to put these theories and arguments as much as possible to the test.

So, while we were heading for a naturalistic ethics, we ran into G.E. Moore, who showed us with his "naturalistic fallacy" that we are completely wrong.

Forget it…. completely impossible to translate ethical terms like "good" and "right" into non-ethical terms like "please", "happiness" etc.

And again Frankena shows up. He nicely pointed out, it cannot be assumed at the outset that what Moore calls the naturalistic fallacy really is a mistake of any kind.

The naturalist proposes a certain kind of definition of some moral term and the non-naturalist then simply asserts that anyone who thinks such definitions are possible is mistaken.

But there is no fallacy here. It is a discussion on semantics and as Moore does, claiming that a concept as "good" is an intuition and can not be defined is unsatisfactory.

Thence as moral realists we face a cluster of explanatory challenges concerning the nature of moral facts (how they relate to naturalistic facts, how we have access to them, why they have practical importance).

In this context there was no room for the emotivism as proposed by Alfred Ayer. The idea that moral judgements have no truth-value but are expressions of attitudes.

So far it has shown us that at least my quintessential question in modern ethics is: Is (rational) justification of moral values possible or not. Or stated more popular, can we transcend the"Well, that is your opinion ..... but this is my opinion!" deadlock?

A first step in the direction of an answer is John Searle's idea about metaphysical objectivism and subjectivism. If you want to refresh your memory on that, reread lecture 9.

Finally I discovered in William Frankena is an inspiring source of support of the idea that justification of moral judgements is possible by taking the moral point of view.

So, what is my position in these ethical discourse now? My opinion is that ethical term like 'good' and "wrong" and "right" can be defined in non-ethical terms.

This means that moral judgements can have a factual content of which we can establish the truth of falsity. Thence moral judgements are not the expression of just personal opinions.

Course is laid in ….. ENGAGE!


The Discussion

[13:24] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:25] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: well, not sure what to say
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: i seem to agree with it
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: and am just making sure i do
[13:25] herman Bergson: No..Is a bit like your course Repose, isnt it?
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: and am not just being pulled along in your wake ㋡
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: my course?
[13:26] herman Bergson: no..we were already on the same ship, I guess ㋡
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: suspect so
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: disagree on particulars upon which the verdict is still out
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: nature of matter, deep things that make the natural world
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: social ethic
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: thought a couple of sessions ago of feral kids
[13:28] herman Bergson whispers: feral kids..what are those?
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: can't separate a social from an individual ethic
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: children raised with little or no human contact
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:28] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: ummm...Truffaut (sp?) made a movie of one
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: wow... that could be me then
[13:28] herman Bergson: never the less these children will display social behavior
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: not much
[13:29] herman Bergson: lol...I didnt want to say it Abraxas... ㋡
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: they don't ever really acquire language
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: its not that bad with me
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: but it shows how much we owe to our social environment
[13:29] herman Bergson: nevertheless simple rules of survival will apply to them too
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: mmm indeed
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes, they do
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think that ethics is a social thing
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: maybe the ground isn't
[13:30] herman Bergson: philosophers my dissect it and analyze it and try to reason about it, but to me it is a social thing
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree
[13:31] herman Bergson: ethics is behavior
[13:31] herman Bergson: what a philosopher does is to make this behavior object of contemplation
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: what else would it be
[13:32] herman Bergson: it could be conceptual Abraxas
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: ah sure
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: and behavior is always relational
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: of course
[13:32] herman Bergson: The rationalist approach...ethics is a discovery of the mind
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: We become ethical beings because of our mind
[13:33] herman Bergson: But I prefer to compare use with a group of chimps in a zoo and observe the behavior
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: that's science
[13:34] herman Bergson: and from there I would begin to try to understand the rules
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: which i just note
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Repose, ethology
[13:34] herman Bergson: or ethology>
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...not heard of either ㋡
[13:35] herman Bergson: what is is called in English..Conrad Lorenz is a great name in that field of study
[13:35] herman Bergson: Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: not really sure
[13:35] herman Bergson: And Dawkins goes even further: The Selfish Gene
[13:36] herman Bergson: Ok...we make it an easy class today...
[13:37] herman Bergson: The teacher is ill...huurraaa!! ㋡
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: so students go ape
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: always
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: without any doubt
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: thatks, Prof
[13:38] herman Bergson: A lot of them stayed in the trees today Abraxas
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: your program/project is clarifying for me
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: they missed this tho
[13:38] herman Bergson: Dont know what is the matter today ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: they'll never evolve that way :0
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: me neither
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: press of the holidays, maybe
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: I guess so
[13:39] herman Bergson: Hasnt happen in three years...except when there was a grid issue or the time shift
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm I can imagine this is strong
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...let's see who shows up next Tuesday
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: wow yes even closer to the hollidayts
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:40] herman Bergson: Ah yes....
[13:40] herman Bergson: I make next tuesday the last class before the Holidays…good idea Abraxas
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes i think that might be a goodplan
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes, sounds like
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes indeed
[13:41] herman Bergson: So than you all for your participation ㋡
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: ok I guess I'll go then
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: Thank you both ㋡
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: bye
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: bye my friends
[13:43] herman Bergson: Das war es fur heute ㋡
[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: heute waren nicht viele da
[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: man merkt eben dass bald weihnachten ist :-)

04 Moral subjectivism( and your own Philosophical Program)

After our latest discussion I realized that it would be a good thing, when I bring forward my personal view on Modern Theories of Ethics. For a good understanding it may be helpful to know in what way I am partial or biased.

Today I'll put my personal views against those of moral relativism and in particular moral subjectivism, which you may call a subspecies of moral relativism.

As we have seen is moral relativism relatively new. The first steps towards a subjectivist interpretation of moral judgement has a longer history.

It was David Hume who came close to classic subjectivism: “X is good” means “I like X.” in "A Treatise of Human Nature "(1739).

- quote - "Since morals have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone can never have any such influence.

Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of reason.

Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.

Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason.

Now ‘tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. ‘Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.

Thus the course of the argument leads us to conclude that, since virtue and vice are not discoverable by reason, it must be by means of some sentiment that we are able to mark the difference between them. Morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of."
- end quote -

The quintessence of moral subjectivism is that moral judgements are not factual statements about mind-independent qualities, but refer to attitudes of the individual person.

The hardest problem for moral subjectivism is to explain, how moral judgements can have authority over others. Hume himself found this problem on his path and tried to solve it more or less by saying:

-quote- "The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. This is the sentiment of humanity." -end quote- An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751)

These thoughts of Hume had a great impact on modern theories of ethics and you'll find them in many variations in all kinds of subjectivist theories.

After only this few lectures on modern theories of ethics I cant ignore the feeling that I explicitly have to take a position in this discourse. Talking about these subjects is completely different from what I have done sofar.

Besides that it is important to have a philosophical program of your own. Those who have attended my lectures for some time, may have some idea what my personal program is, but with respect to this subject, ethics, I want to be explicit about it.

Although philosophers always are put in some ISM (empiricism, rationalism, existentialism) does this not mean that they had clear-cut theories about every philosophical question according to their "ism". It is us who love to organize philosophical thinking in 'isms"

To define you personal philosophical program, your way of philosophical dealing with for instance moral judgements, you may discover that you feel more attracted to certain arguments and more in disagreement with other arguments, even tho you may not yet have a good explanation for your preferences.

I hold the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false and that that ethical sentences express propositions about mind-independent facts of the world. Thence you may classify me as someone who believes that moral realism holds the best cards.

This is closely associated with my ontological standpoint that we are just matter and that we have to look for (philosophical) answers at evolution theory, biology, ethology, psychology and neurophysiology for instance.

This doesn't mean that I only need to read the few articles on moral realism and materialism and I'll have all my philosophical answers. This would turn philosophy into some kind of religion.

The contrary is actually the case: the more lectures I give the more desperate I become. There are so many arguments for and against ideas. However, what saves me from insanity, is my personal philosophical program.

In fact it is a rather pragmatic solution. In your personal history you discover, that you are inclined to prefer certain (philosophical) ideas above others. Don't waste time on questioning where that inclination has come from.

A personal philosophical program means not only that you study as much as possible what supports your ideas (that is only to make you feel good:-)

but especially, that you - in an almost Popperian mode - focus on what is brought AGAINST your ideas and are willing to enter the philosophical debate.

And in a way you may discover, that we may never find the definite truth, but that a good argumentation can make some philosophical standpoint untenable, which observation brings you closer to your personal views.

So, from this perspective I will present you my lectures on Modern Theories of Ethics.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you ^_^
[13:21] Apmel Ibbetson: wow..
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..plz fele free..
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well... I didnt silence you, did I ? ㋡
[13:22] Apmel Ibbetson: you seem to have done just that :)
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: so, philosophical and maybe mathematical objects are real
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes....seems so, Apmel
[13:23] oola Neruda: does this approach mean that all people will adhere to the same morality?
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: at least in the sense that they have phenomenal analog?
[13:23] herman Bergson: two questions...
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: analogs?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Why do you come to that conclusion, Repose?
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: well, math "works"
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: non-Euclidean geometry was discovered
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: before it was used to model the world
[13:25] herman Bergson: that is a debate "discovered" or "invented" ?
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: would a realist say "discovered"?
[13:25] Kurk Mumfuzz: would it exist if our species did not...?
[13:26] herman Bergson: I have to think about that....
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: I don't know
[13:26] herman Bergson: in a way I would say yes...
[13:26] Startwinkle Aya: natural laws are there wether we are or not
[13:26] herman Bergson: there are two parties here....the mind and reality...
[13:26] Apmel Ibbetson: I´ve been away for two years..but I missed that herman said he was a mathematical realist just now
[13:26] herman Bergson: the math may be the result of the interaction between the two
[13:27] Apmel Ibbetson: he said he was a ethical realist
[13:27] Kurk Mumfuzz: but it is merely our interpretation of those laws... a feeble grasp, at best... ㋡
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: true Apmel
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Apmel...
[13:27] herman Bergson: but ontologically I can be called a realist or naturalist I suppose
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: but does the argument apply to philosophical and thus ethical objects, i wonder
[13:27] herman Bergson: But to answer oola's question...
[13:28] herman Bergson: That is in fact one of the main issues...
[13:28] herman Bergson: Hume had to take refuge to an idea of humanity....a kind of universal human quality
[13:29] herman Bergson: In another way I am inclined to follow that idea...
[13:29] oola Neruda: that is what i was wondering
[13:29] herman Bergson: I mean, regarded as a basic ingredient of an organims
[13:29] herman Bergson: It doesnt mean that I know what these basics are
[13:30] herman Bergson: But exactly that is my program...
[13:30] herman Bergson: It might take a lifetime to get the answer or get close to an answer...
[13:30] Kurk Mumfuzz: i am a bit uncomfortable with the notion that ethics is determined by a social consensus… what if that concensus is wrong...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: But that makes the philosopher tick ㋡
[13:31] Apmel Ibbetson: I´m with you on that one Kurk
[13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that ethics is determined by social consensus
[13:31] herman Bergson: part of it is, you could say, determined by culture
[13:32] Milo Threebeards: Social consensus = mores for the society at the time represented. You can apply the ethics term to that if you like. Throughout history as we move on these things change
[13:32] herman Bergson: But as Hans Küng already believed....there is some general or universal ethics
[13:32] herman Bergson: In fact something like Hume also refered to
[13:33] herman Bergson: At least speaking for myself, I think that the human organism is universal in its qualities to some extend..
[13:33] herman Bergson: like we all have two legs and two eyes
[13:33] Apmel Ibbetson: so ethics is the same as species?
[13:33] herman Bergson: So to some extend the body has a universal shape
[13:34] herman Bergson: I am inclined to focus my research on that idea Apmel
[13:34] Apmel Ibbetson: ok..daring answer
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Milo makes a good point...
[13:35] herman Bergson: And that is the important point Milo....
[13:35] herman Bergson: would you say that we have a different idea of ethics than for instance the Greek 300 B.C?
[13:36] Milo Threebeards: Well ethics are usually represented by the majority of what society believes is correct. I think that the basics remain the same but do bend
[13:37] Milo Threebeards: For example issues of clothing and appearance as opposed to crime and punishment
[13:37] herman Bergson: I agree Milo.....that is what in the former lecture was pointed at...
[13:37] herman Bergson: the philosophy of today on ethics holds a number of thinkers, who believe in a mixed situation
[13:38] Kurk Mumfuzz: there may be reason to believe that emergin ethical perspectives are like evolutional abberations… a radical awareness that behavior and thought must be changed in order to survive...
[13:38] herman Bergson: on the one hand there isa layer of subjectivism / relativism an don the other hand there is some objectivity yet
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Kurk...another chapter...the relation between ethics and evolution
[13:39] Kurk Mumfuzz: k... ㋡
[13:39] herman Bergson: I believe there definitely is one, tho I stilll havent got answers
[13:40] herman Bergson: but it is part of my program
[13:40] Kurk Mumfuzz: well, it strongly suggests that ethics is an on-going strugle to maintain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: Who knows...
[13:41] herman Bergson: But in Science fiction they sometimes come up with the idea that mankind will evolve in a kind of MIND only beings
[13:42] Kurk Mumfuzz: i think the maintenance of ethical systems is real... not fiction...
[13:42] Kurk Mumfuzz: e.g., when we invented nuclear weapons, notions of "limited violence" became fashionable...
[13:43] herman Bergson: but that was just a variation on what we already do for centuries
[13:43] oola Neruda: last week i wanted to bring up Oppenheimer… and his delimia
[13:43] herman Bergson: we kill justified and unjustified
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes...it must be a terribly difficult situation when you know you use physics only to make something very destructive
[13:44] herman Bergson: ethics in the weapon industry..
[13:45] herman Bergson: sounds almost contradictory
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: ambiguous
[13:45] Kurk Mumfuzz: but there is an ethical system there... we may not see or understand it... but it exists...
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There definitely will exist some rationalizzation
[13:46] Apmel Ibbetson: maybe that is what ethics is all about?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: is ethical rationalization still ethics?
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Apmel......a kind of rationalization of our animalistic drives
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: oh...
[13:47] Apmel Ibbetson: hmm..we seem to agree a lot today herman :)
[13:47] Kurk Mumfuzz: well, that is the interesting part... Hume tells us it cannot be rationalized... but I will bet their ethical system in the weapons industry is chillingly rational...
[13:47] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡
[13:47] Frederick Hansome: it seems that the ultimate question relates to what we base our ethical position on.
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes interesting subject....
[13:48] Frederick Hansome: who (or what) is to say one criteria is preferabel to another
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well...at least I have made clear what my philosphical starting point is in this project
[13:49] herman Bergson: That, Frederick, is in fact the whole debate in ethics
[13:49] Frederick Hansome: well, please give us the definitive answer! :)
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles
[13:50] herman Bergson: as we saw with cultural relativism...there is no criterium to decide by....
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yoy are asking too much, Frederick
[13:50] Frederick Hansome: smiles
[13:50] herman Bergson: But in fact is that your personal program....
[13:51] herman Bergson: You have to put your ideas to the test
[13:51] Apmel Ibbetson: not really herman..you said you were an ethical realist..so that must be some "true" ethics then?
[13:51] herman Bergson: the only tool you have is logical argumentation
[13:52] Frederick Hansome: but virtue and ethics do not lend themselves to logic
[13:52] herman Bergson: ethical realist means that moral judgements have mind-independent references...
[13:52] herman Bergson: Like for instance Philippa Foot suggested that a value word like 'rude' or 'courageous' have empirical content
[13:53] herman Bergson: besides their function as value word
[13:53] Kurk Mumfuzz: to me that suggests that i cannot predict what decision you might make in any given question...
[13:53] Apmel Ibbetson: yes..and if it does..then you can try to find the true corrrespondens to that fact
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Apmel and thus become moral judgements rationally debatable..
[13:54] herman Bergson: This is therefore contrary to Hume's idea
[13:55] Startwinkle Aya: im needed i must go be well all
[13:55] Kurk Mumfuzz: but how do we communicate that to others to establish the consensus of what is right and what is not...? make rules...?
[13:56] herman Bergson: If moral judgements are rationally debatable, we can use logical argumentation
[13:56] herman Bergson: Which in fact already happens in all kinds of negociations
[13:57] oola Neruda: i think it could be hard to tell a logical argument from some rationalizations
[13:57] Kurk Mumfuzz: if i tell you that i am an epicurian hedonist, then we have a place to begin a discussion of my ethical system... where do we begin with a "ethical realist"...?
[13:58] herman Bergson: Oh...there are millions of obstacles oola....but the point is to follow that idea and put it to the test yet
[13:58] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:59] herman Bergson: Maybe with a debate on the empirical mind-independent content of moral judgements
[14:00] Frederick Hansome: sorty, have to leave
[14:00] herman Bergson: How to justify that....analyze the semantics of moral judgements
[[14:00] Violette McMinnar: Good night all
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: "realist" is an epistemological term, right? to know where to start with an ethical realist, do we need to know his or her ontology?
[14:00] herman Bergson: Ok....I guess our time is up for today :-)
[14:01] herman Bergson: May I thank you for your participation
[14:01] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡ thank you for this... :)
[14:01] itsme Frederix: thank you for the lecture
[14:01] Apmel Ibbetson: thank you herman..
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[14:01] Apmel Ibbetson: I´ll try to be back sooner than two years from now:)
[14:01] oola Neruda: thank you for allowing us to see your point of view in this
[14:01] herman Bergson: yes Repose..the qualification 'realisme' has many ramifications
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: Yes, thanks for the personal view, Prof
[14:02] herman Bergson: especially it is an important concept in epistemology
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yes, picked that up from the bits of reading i do...
[14:03] Kurk Mumfuzz: k.. take care, all... ㋡
[14:03] herman Bergson: You can find a number of lectures on realism in the blog of the philosophy class Repose :-)
[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Kurk
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, I look them up!
[14:04] Apmel Ibbetson: bye all
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: them
[14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Apmel...
[14:05] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman! :-)

03 Another analysis

Thesis 1:As a matter of 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.

The meta-ethical position usually concerns the truth or justification of moral judgments, which leads to

Thesis 2: 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.

These are two theses which deal with different aspects of epistemology. T1 focuses on the question: What can I know, in which it assumes that sensory experiences is the source of our knowledge.

T2 assumes that we obtain data by sensory experiences and that we can formulate statements with truth-value based on them. Thence it asks how truth is established.

T1 registers that in some cultures you see that there is polygamy and in others there is not, which leads to a conclusion that monogamy is not a universal standard. T2 goes on step further and says "Polygamy is morally wrong".

When you say that this statement is true, T2 says that the truth is relative to a specific culture. Even stronger…we have no rational basis to decide on the fact that in culture A it is true, and in culture B it is false, with the more complicating factor that is can be relative to a group or different persons in one group even.

Against T2 we can bring forward moral objectivism, which holds that rationally we can prove that moral judgments are ordinarily true or false in an absolute or universal sense.

Or we can use even a heavier attack and claim that moral judgements can not have truth-value at all, because they are completely different from descriptive statements as used in science, like "The distance between the Moon and Earth is n km".

First of all we can challenge the focus on disagreement in T1. Before you can disagree with someone there must be a lot of agreement first, otherwise you could not even communicate with that other person as the meaning of every word could be challenged then.

If this is right, there cannot be extensive disagreements about morality. The agreements are more significant than the disagreements. T1 cannot be true.

Another way of criticism we encountered in Philippa Foot (1978) in my lecture on her ideas. She holds that words like 'good' or 'rude' or 'brave' not only have an evaluative content, but also a descriptive content.

This enables us to unveil the agreement we can have on moral terms based on the descriptive content of the term, which means the behavior, actions it refers to.

Again a reason to reject moral or cultural relativism is that it may be said that the supposed evidence is incomplete or inaccurate because the observers are biased.

For instance based on the fact that our language doesn't have words for certain phenomena in another culture and that the words we use represent them in a biased and colored way.

An other argument against the empirical evidence on which T1 is based is the anthropological assumption that cultures are rather discrete, homogenous, and static entities.

There are arguments to hold that a culture is an ongoing process, which changes and can be influenced and if this is so, it would be much harder to know the moral values of different cultures and to prove that the disagreements prevail.

Besides, these disagreements between cultures can also be caused by religious differences and that for instance the underlying conviction, that a person for instance has a right to his life can count on a general agreement.

And from that you can even go one step further and hold that the opposite of T1 is an empirical fact: there is a lot of agreement on fundamental moral values.

Take the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. You'll find it in many cultures like basic moral prohibitions against lying, stealing, adultery, killing human beings, etc.

Hans Küng (1996) and others even maintain that there is a common “global ethic” across the world's major religious traditions. As you see, there are a lot of ways to critizise T1.

This objectivist standpoint, the view that there is some kind of independent moral standard, leads to the conclusion, that we rationally could discuss moral disagreements.

By testing moral judgement against an objective standard you can rationally conclude that judgement A is right and judgement B is wrong.

A relativist would admit that it might be possible to resolve disagreements within one moral framework, but not when these judgements are taken from different moral frameworks.

Another consequence of an objectivist standpoint is that there only one right moral standard, which implies that this standard has to be superior to other moral standards.

In reality we see this idea about ethics expressed in matters as Universal Human Rights and the activities of Amnesty International,

or in the worldwide actions agains global warming. It seems that about all nations are convinced that the moral standard that one should preserve and protect life a universal moral standard is.

This may be a somewhat long and complicated lecture, but we cant escape that: the thesis that moral disagreements prevail and can not rationally resolved is easily stated, but way more difficult to defend, which counts for most philosophical standpoints.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: So, I guess this is enough to give you a headache ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a remark or question...plz
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: re: global warming -- the end of life is the end of moral possibility. Pretty easy to agree on that...
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: but something that CAN be agreed upon...
[13:24] Abraxas Nagy: is it?
[13:24] herman Bergson: I think that there are moral motivations involved
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: no?
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so one objective standard we will have is the person's right to life
[13:24] Frederick Hansome: You mentioned testing moral judgement against an objective standard. What would an objective standard look like?
[13:24] Prof Cerise: but a person's right to life may be waived in war
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well Gemma....the quintessence is indeed if it is possible to get to objective standards
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: or seppuku
[13:25] herman Bergson: moral relativism denies that
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but even now in some countries that is completely ignored
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: still ethnic cleansing
[13:25] herman Bergson: That may be true, but you still can ask the question : is that right
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:25] herman Bergson: Besides...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Things as ethnic cleansing is most of the time motivated by religious or ideological views
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: that means that the underlying moral judgements...a right to live for instance are not accessible rationally
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes...
[13:28] herman Bergson: What strikes me in the debate is that many philosophers try to stick to one approach
[13:28] Prof Cerise: but if arguments can be made for a person's right to life even from within a culture, rational grounds are given
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: buried still in myth...
[13:28] herman Bergson: it is either relativism or objectivism
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: nothing between???
[13:28] Prof Cerise: I agree. False dichotomy
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:29] herman Bergson: There are however a few these days who hold that some standards are universal, objective and others can be relative
[13:30] Prof Cerise: any normative standard we hold is always taken to be universal
[13:30] herman Bergson: In the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia you can find some names
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: always?
[13:30] herman Bergson: I wonder.....
[13:30] Prof Cerise: well, it doesn't mean that it is unchangeable though
[13:30] herman Bergson: Universal for the person who holds the moral standard yes...
[13:31] Prof Cerise: yes
[13:31] herman Bergson: but if=n fact is that just a form of subjectivism
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...so what does that say about the claim to universality, then?
[13:31] herman Bergson: YEs Repose....
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: if it is changeable?
[13:32] herman Bergson: the thing is that certain moral judgements claim authority..
[13:32] herman Bergson: claim
[13:32] herman Bergson: and the question is....on what is this authority based
[13:32] Prof Cerise: what about the notion of contextualized universality?
[13:32] herman Bergson: what is the justification of that authority
[13:33] herman Bergson: Would that not be a kind of relativism Prof?
[13:33] Prof Cerise: how about a kind of split between relativism and absolutism?
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: split?
[13:33] Prof Cerise: not absolutely relative, not absolutely absolute
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is in fact one of the modern developments in the philosophical discourse on ethics
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Coleridge: The hallmark of a mature mind is its ability to tolerate ambiguity"
[13:34] herman Bergson: Personally I am inclined to look at evolutionary factors in human behavior
[13:34] Prof Cerise: it also allow for change in our morals based on the change in context
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: I prefer "embrace"
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: we do a lot of that here repose
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:35] herman Bergson smiles
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: i swim in it, Gemma :))
[13:35] herman Bergson: I am inclined to look for moral justification in our biology
[13:36] Prof Cerise: how so?
[13:36] herman Bergson: As the basic drives of a living organism
[13:36] Prof Cerise: is does not derive ought
[13:36] herman Bergson: in our evolution we have learnt to stick to certain rules
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: wondered about that myself
[13:37] herman Bergson: No...the OUGHT is a human invention
[13:37] herman Bergson: a product of the mind
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: everything is a product of the mind
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: that is an assumption, though
[13:37] Prof Cerise: of course, but you still cannot derive morals from facts, can you?
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: sure
[13:38] herman Bergson: that is what Hume already noticed , yes..
[13:38] Startwinkle Aya: there are natural laws too
[13:38] Prof Cerise: just because something is a certain way does not mean it "should" be that way
[13:38] herman Bergson: But this implies that moral statements are factual statement
[13:38] herman Bergson: or actually not
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: naturalistic fallacy, yes -- but ethics may ultimately ground in the transrational
[13:38] Prof Cerise: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: Like Hare suggested....moral judgements are prescriptive statements...commands
[13:38] Prof Cerise: transrational?
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: molecules may be 8 shapes at once
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: moral life can't be 2?
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: is/ought?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: why not?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: for each concept
[13:39] Prof Cerise: but hare was an emotivist, right?
[13:39] Startwinkle Aya: each view
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes
[13:40] Prof Cerise: so he wasn't keen on normative judgments at all
[13:40] herman Bergson: but a fact is that we are organisms guided by rules, by normativity
[13:40] Prof Cerise: but we still want to say that killing is wrong is an appropriate moral standard
[13:41] Prof Cerise: aren't rules norms?
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes
[13:41] Prof Cerise: ah, sorry...misread
[13:41] herman Bergson: if you take the thesis: killing is wrong
[13:41] Prof Cerise: yes, we are guided by rules, but we can still question them and look for rational basis
[13:41] herman Bergson: would that be universally accepted?
[13:42] Prof Cerise: and without a rational basis, they would be unjustified
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is the point Prof....
[13:42] Prof Cerise: so back to biology...
[13:42] herman Bergson: we say killing is wrong, but.....and then our (irr)rationality kicks in :-)
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: what grounds reason, then?
[13:42] Prof Cerise: how can you rationally ground a moral norm in biological facts?
[13:43] Startwinkle Aya: needs
[13:43] herman Bergson: this has several aspects...
[13:43] herman Bergson: the first is a descriptive approach...
[13:43] herman Bergson: the human organism behaves
[13:44] herman Bergson: does things and leaves other actions...
[13:44] herman Bergson: so we choose.....have motives for actions
[13:44] herman Bergson: and this can be regarded as a product of evolution
[13:45] Prof Cerise: so where does normativity come in?
[13:45] herman Bergson: where we have complicated our lives in respect to other primates by the fact that we can question our motives and actions
[13:45] herman Bergson: the normativity would come from survival
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: it is self-reflexive?
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are....
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: i see your position...
[13:46] Prof Cerise: but the fact of a survival instinct does not justify any standard, right?
[13:46] Prof Cerise: I am trying to understand
[13:47] herman Bergson: so eventually you could conclude that moral s is learnt behavior
[13:47] Prof Cerise: Yes
[13:47] herman Bergson: and not based on a specific culture....that is the surface
[13:47] herman Bergson: but based on human nature in a biological sense
[13:48] Prof Cerise: but whenever we talk about justification, we surpass facticity and learned behavior
[13:48] Lovey Dayafter: what is the topic for next time?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting
[13:48] Prof Cerise: so how can we ever have a justified moral law?
[13:49] Prof Cerise: or do we just have to say that we have moral laws (simpliciter) and not ask for their rational bases?
[13:49] herman Bergson: well...that depends on what you mean with justification...
[13:49] Prof Cerise: yes it does
[13:50] Prof Cerise: justification would involve anything with reasons
[13:50] herman Bergson: if it is logical deducability…that might be difficult unless you accept normativity in the premisses
[13:50] Prof Cerise: and these reasons could very well be contextualized (actually, they would always have to be)
[13:51] herman Bergson: and this normativity could be biologically justified
[13:51] Prof Cerise: how would biology justify "thou shall not steal?"
[13:52] herman Bergson: that would be behavioristically justified
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: sociobiologists could probably find a way, Prof C. I wouldn't find it compelling, most likely...
[13:52] herman Bergson: the organism has learnt that it does not contribute to its survival in the long term
[13:53] herman Bergson: dont ask me for all answers... ㋡
[13:53] Prof Cerise: :)
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:53] herman Bergson: I only can give you my tentative frame of mind
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: we are a young species!
[13:53] Prof Cerise: lol
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:53] herman Bergson: Oh yes...
[13:54] herman Bergson: human development has been very slow
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: mmm are we?
[13:54] Sartre Placebo: night
[13:54] herman Bergson: some arent Abraxas
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: new science: evolution speeded up 500% in past 10k years psyorg.com
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to go to the newspaper for a meeting now
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: i will be here thursday
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok...
[13:55] Lovey Dayafter: c u Gemma
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: bye, Gemma!
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma :-)
[13:55] Prof Cerise: bye gemma
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:55] Startwinkle Aya: bye gamma, waves
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: SLN!
[13:55] herman Bergson: I think it is time to dismiss class
[13:56] herman Bergson: I hope all this has given you enough to think about :-)
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Yes, Prof
[13:56] herman Bergson: Then I thank you for your participation again
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:57] Prof Cerise: thanks professor!
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: oh yes! tysm! herman
[13:57] Frederick Hansome: nite, all. Thank you, herman
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: Thank you!
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: nite Fred
[13:57] Startwinkle Aya: be well all
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye frederick :-)
[13:57] Violette McMinnar: Thank you Herman, good night all
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: WOOOOOOOO
[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye StarTwinkle
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: free flight

02 On Cultural Relativism

Relativism is always attributed to others and almost always as a criticism. Like skepticism it has a bad name for some reason. And today we'll talk about cultural relativism, which is more or less equivalent to moral relativism.

One of the interesting aspects of it is, that it is quite new: a product of the 20th century. Of course before the 20th century we find traces of relativistic thinking, but that tends more to skepticism.

At the beginning of the 20th century most people were convinced that that our Western moral values were superior to the moral values of other cultures.

Few thought all moral values had equal or relative validity, or anything of that sort. So we sent out missionaries with mirrors and beads to convert the pagans.

But then came the anthropologists. They were fascinated with the diversity of cultures, and they produced detailed empirical studies of them—especially “primitive,” non-Western ones.

And with them came cultural relativism, the conviction that saying that Western civilization was superior to other "primitive" cultures was sheer respectless arrogance and cultural imperialism.

We find scientists like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead on our Path. Ruth Benedict, an influential American anthropologist who lived from 1887 to 1948, specialized in the study of native American cultures.. Margaret Mead studied South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures.

In 1947, on the occasion of the United Nations debate about universal human rights, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement

declaring that moral values are relative to cultures and that there is no way of showing that the values of one culture are better than those of another.

Or to quote Ruth Benedict herself: "Most organizations of personality that seem to us abnormal have been used by civilizations in the foundations of their institutional life.

Conversely the most valued traits of our normal individuals have been looked on in differently organized cultures as aberrant. Normality, in short, within a very wide range, is culturally defined.

It is a point that has been made more often in relation to ethics. We do not any longer make the mistake of deriving the morality of our own locality and decade directly from the inevitable constitution of human nature. We do not elevate it to the dignity of a first principle.

We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, “It is a morally good,” rather than “It is habitual,” and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.

The concept of the normal is a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society." (1934)

Important words of an anthropologist which resound in the statement of 1947. Cultural relativism and along with it, moral relativism, was put on the map.

In moral philosophy we can look at moral relativism from different angles. The first one is the empirical:

As a matter of 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.

The second one is the meta-ethical one: 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.

And the third angle is the implicit normative idea of relativism, that we ought to be tolerant with respect to other opinions and moral ideas.

As you see, cultural relativism is not just a simple observation of anthropologists. We still are allowed to ask, whether they are right or wrong, or to what extend.

To be continued next week…



The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: So much for a start :-)
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: it is really easy to agree with all that isnt it but then comes the questiong of "truth " again
[13:18] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: back to square one
[13:19] herman Bergson: Next lecture I will elaborate in these three ways of looking at cultural relativism...
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: seems like a good corrective to cultural absolutism...
[13:19] herman Bergson: all look plausible, untill you begin asking questions
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: But to reveal one secret.....
[13:20] herman Bergson: the end of the discussion is that a number of philosophers support a 'mixed' theory...
[13:21] herman Bergson: the idea that some moral standards are absolute and some relative
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: lolololol
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: that seems reasonable...
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:21] Myriam Brianna: Oo
[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Repose....I think so too....
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: i love ambiguity
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: grin
[13:22] herman Bergson: the closer you stick to the human being as biological organism the more universal are his traits, I would say
[13:22] herman Bergson: The more you get involved in culture (especially religions) the more relative it all becomes
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...i see
[13:23] Kurk Mumfuzz: is there not another angle that can exist within the context of a single culture, and that being situational or conditional relativity...? the notion that normal or routine situations my dictate a certain mode of behavior and other circumstances might allow an entirely different response...? this is not insignificant as much conflict within our culture -- i.e. the polarities -- comes from this...
[13:23] herman Bergson: One problem of our way of thinking is that we LOVE binary thinking....it is either absolute or relative
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you 'd said it in less words, Kurk, what would you have said then :-)
[13:25] Kurk Mumfuzz: not ok to kill somebody in a "civilized" setting... but might be ok in self defense...
[13:25] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡
[13:25] Kurk Mumfuzz: within the same culture...
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: moral obligations contend
[13:26] herman Bergson: but that happens all the time, doesnt it?
[13:26] Kurk Mumfuzz: yeah... so is killing ok...?
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: no that is the problem
[13:26] herman Bergson: But that is one of the arguments in support of all weapon possesion in the US...You have to be able to defend your life
[13:27] herman Bergson: Last time I asked the question ...does justified killing exist?
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: some say it does some say it does not
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:29] Kurk Mumfuzz: well, there is the notion that ethics defines a mode of behavior... may have arisen originally as the prescriptions for survival... so it could go both ways...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes....some who tend to support some kind of objectivism in ethics are inclined to believe that there are universal standards
[13:29] oola Neruda: when the culture is divided on a subject then what is the norm?
[13:29] herman Bergson: for instance the preservation of your own life
[13:29] oola Neruda: not even situational... just outright different beliefs
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes oola, when a society is divided on that subject.....
[13:29] herman Bergson: you really get in trouble with moral relativism
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: maybe there are "universalish" standards (grin again)
[13:30] herman Bergson: somehting like that, yes, Repose
[13:31] herman Bergson: This brings up this idea of tolerance which is often associate with moral relativism...
[13:32] herman Bergson: should we tolerate that a group in society thinks that killing is justified.... for instance if it as the death penalty?
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: good question
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: like here in the usa
[13:32] herman Bergson: exactly
[13:33] Kurk Mumfuzz: that would introduce a number of issues into the discussion to examine justice and just treatment...
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: too much "moral relativism," and greater or lesser degrees of "tolerance" can't be evaluated...
[13:34] Kurk Mumfuzz: and yeah, those would be cultural assumptions...
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes....and accepting relativism doesnt seem to be satifactoy as an explanation
[13:35] Kurk Mumfuzz: exactly...
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: agreed
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: who are some of the philosophers that we have studied that advocate relativism
[13:35] herman Bergson: Next lecture I'll give an analysis of the three standpoints I mentioned
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: trying to recall
[13:36] herman Bergson: there are so many pros and cons related to them
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: sounds very interesting!
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well I'll reveal in advance already that I am a bit biased.....:-)
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think that this mixed approach, which is of recent date, makes a good chance to stand a test
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: i hope the time change will fill the class again
[13:39] herman Bergson: So, I guess I now can thank you for your interest and participation....
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:39] Kurk Mumfuzz: ㋡
[13:39] herman Bergson: not much controvery yet , I guess ㋡
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: Thank you!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: not yet!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: nope...
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: early dismissal
[13:40] herman Bergson: welll..then....class dismissed :-)
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, everyone!
[13:40] herman Bergson: PARTY TIME .....Visit Gemma and Qwark today at 3 PM
[13:40] Kurk Mumfuzz: thank you, all... ㋡
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: oh...
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: hope he makes it by 3!!!