On Ethical Relativism
Richard Wilson
jkop...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey D Koperski) writes:
>
> The question here is whether conflicting ethical beliefs
>entail (or are by themselves even evidence for) relativism.
>The answer is no. Note carefully, I am not arguing that all
>forms of ethical relativism are false. I am simply pointing
>out that the mere existence of conflicting ethical systems
>does not support that view.
> Why not? To illustrate the problem, consider the
>astronomical beliefs of the world population around 1700.
>Most scientists at the time believed there were six planets,
With the instruments they had, I assume that there were 6
observable planets. This was demonstrable and true. A belief
that no more would be discovered would have been unscientific,
surely.
>although some believed there were seven due to Pythagorean
>assumptions about the heavens. Nor had everyone accepted the
>heliocentric model of the solar system by this time. In
>other cultures a variety of views about celestial bodies were
>available that were in no way "scientific." Anyone positing
>nine planets would have held a true belief, but a completely
BTW since I do not think that Pluto rates as a planet, I would say
that there are 8.
>unwarranted one. In the year 1700, did the existence of
>these conflicting astronomical views provide any evidence for
>"solar relativism?" Of course not. This is because we
>recognize the difference between astronomical facts and the
>evidence we have for them, between the way the world is and
>what we believe about it. In short, we can be wrong. We
>would not say that the belief in six planets was true-for-
>them, rather the scientists of the time had well justified
>beliefs that were in fact false. Truth and falsehood, unlike
>justification, does not change over time.
Quite.
> Likewise, there may very well be moral facts, although I
>don't wish to argue for them here. Their existence is the
I don't see how a moral injunction can have a truth value. This
does not mean that I believe moral philosophy to be impossible,
I happen to think that it is very important though challenging!
>philosophical claim of ethical realism, not to be confused
>with slogans advocating "moral absolutes." In any discourse
>in which there are facts, one can be right or wrong and have
>strong or weak justification for his beliefs. Science is
Philosophical debate doesn't depend on being right or wrong but
the validity of the argument and the quality of justification.
>often taken as the paradigm of a fact-stating discourse,
>which is not the same as a truth-stating discourse (a fact-
>stating discourse is one in which the statements made are
>_capable_ of being true or false). The ethical realist has
Science is not just discourse about facts: scientists try to
understand why things are the way they are.
>no difficulty with the conflicting moral systems the social
>scientist has uncovered. His explanation is that some of
Nor do social scientists.
>those beliefs are wrong. In exactly the same way, not all of
What sort of an explanation is that?
>the beliefs about the solar system in 1700 could be correct
>since they were inconsistent. From our point of view, none
>of their views were true (disallowing for the moment the
The correctness of their beliefs has nothing to do with our
point of view.
>controversial notion of "approximate truth," whatever that
>may be).
Are you referring to *theoretical* approximations such as
Newtonian physics which is accurate enough for space mission
calculations but can't cope with relativity?
>... But given the widespread _agreement_
>on clear cases of moral goodness (helping an injured child)
>and evil (the holocaust), it appears prima facie that there
>are moral facts. In short, a more substantial argument is
I do not follow. We can generally agree on the moral classification
of actions but how does this lead us to moral facts? It is not
agreement that makes facts.
>required either way.
> One more observation. Disagreement is the order of the
>day in economics, psychology, political science, cognitive
>science, linguistics, etc., yet no one would take this as
>evidence that these fields are somehow suspect and that there
>is no fact of the matter regarding their studies. The
>ethical realist asks us to treat moral theory with equal
>respect.
Respect, fine, but asserting that there are moral facts is more
than this and IMO false.
> A bonus for the theist: an exactly analogous argument
>can be used to defend against the oft cited "many religions"
>criticism. It is not dogmatism to say that one of many
>religions is the right one if those religions conflict,
>although it may be dogmatic to say _my_ religion is the right
>one. To claim that one of them is right (I gloss over the
Many believers are dogmatic and they are obliged to take this
authoritarian stance or be branded (perhaps literally) as heretics.
This dogmatism and its consequences contribute to human suffering
and are morally objectionable.
>commonality among religions here) is merely to say there are
>theological facts. There may not be, but the mere existence
>of conflicting religions does not count against the claim.
Was it Chesterton's angels who flew because they took things
lightly? I think that believers should back off, be tolerant
and have friendly relations with their fellow humans rather than
issue death threats against those they consider blasphemers.
Richard Wilson
mathew
>BTW since I do not think that Pluto rates as a planet, I would say
>that there are 8.
By the way, why do you not think that Pluto rates as a planet?
mathew