For your next paper you should deeply logically analyze this topic as described in the following prompt, and, when you have done that, only then write up a proper (minumum three page) Thesis Paper fully describing, clarifying, supporting, and defending what you presently think is the most logically supportable conclusion we can come to about this topic.(Three pages, double spaced, odf, .doc. .docx, .pdf, submit through Turnitin.com.)
    A Thesis Paper starts with a statement of your thesis (or "unthesis") as its very first sentence.
    A Thesis Paper does not have an introduction.
    A Thesis Paper does not have a conclusion.
If you would like more general guidance on how to write a next stage thesis paper, see the follow-up rules.

Relativism and Morality

Your present task is to figure out if we have good reason to think that Ethical Relativism (the idea that morality is just a matter of culture) is true.

First, some definitions.

Ethical absolutism is the doctrine that all moral laws are universal. It holds that what is right or wrong for a given individual depends on the appropriate application of universal moral principles, irrespective of what anybody happens to think is right or wrong. On this model, morality is like mathematics.Just as 2 + 2 = 4 no matter where you are or what culture you belong to, gratuitous torture is wrong no matter who does it or to what culture they belong.

Prosociality is the idea of promoting wellbeing and reducing harm across the wholw of humanity. It prohibits things that significantly harm innocent and harmless people, and advocates doing things that help the most needy of innocent people. It also advocates policies and practices that as much as possible make everyone in society, especially the most needy, better off.

Prosociality as Morality is the idea that "prosociality" and "morality" are actually the same thing. People who help and don't harm are morally good people, while people who harm and don't help are morally bad people. Morally bad actions are actions that unjustifiably hurt people, or unjustifiably allow people to come to harm. Under this view, the morality of a given action or policy can be figured out by considering the various benefits and various kinds of harm it would cause, balancing degrees and kinds of help and harm against each other, and comparing its expected results to the expected results of other available actions or policies.

Prosociality as Morality is a form of ethical absolutism, because the question of whether a particular action helps or harms someone is a completely objective question. According to PaM, a culture or religion that promotes harm while failing to encourage help is a morally bad culture or religion, and any culture or religion that agitates for serious harm to be done to innocent members of vulnerable and harmless populations is deeply, deeply immoral.

Cultural chauvinism is the doctrine that some arbitrarily selected culture (usually one's own) is somehow magically better than all other cultures. For instance, Christian missionaries in Hawaii were acting out of cultural chauvanism when they banned surfing and bullied Hawaiian women out of going topless. They saw that Hawaiian customs were not European customs, so they decided that Hawaiian customs were morally wrong merely because they were different.

Ethical absolutism condemns cultural chauvinism. Ethical absolutism holds that Christian missionaries acted illegitimately in Hawaii when they banned surfing and bullied Hawaiian women out of going topless. The missionaries were morally wrong to do these things because they had no independently justifiable reasons for thinking that bare breasts and surfing hurt any one in any way. They were merely judging Hawaiian culture on the basis of their own European culture, which interferes with individual rights of self-determination.

Cultural relativism as the doctrine that no culture may legitimately be judged by the arbitrary standards of another culture. Cultural relativism holds that Christian missionaries in Hawaii had no moral basis to ban surfing and bully Hawaiian women out of going topless. Cultural relativism also denies that is such a thing as a "primitive" culture. All cultures are equally advanced, and equally worthy of respect. Cultural relativism is thus a doctrine about cultures judging cultures, rather than about ethics in general. Cultural relativism therefore does not imply that the British imperialists were wrong to interfere with the Indian practice of suttee, in which living widows were forced to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. Since we have independent reasons to think that it is absolutely morally wrong to force an innocent woman to burn herself to death, the prevention of suttee is not based merely on British culture, so it does not violate cultural relativism.

Ethical Absolutism supports cultural relativism. Ethical Absolutism implies that no-one should be judged on the basis of other people's arbitrary ideas of morality, which is exactly what cultural relativism also implies.

Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no universal moral rules, but instead what is right or wrong for a given individual depends on what some other person (an "authority") or group of persons (a "culture") happens to think is right or wrong. (Ethical absolutism, the doctrine that all moral laws are universal, holds that what is right or wrong for a given individual depends on the appropriate application of universal moral principles, irrespective of what anybody happens to think is right or wrong.) Ethical relativism is usually defined in terms of culture, hence the confusion with cultural relativism, but it is important to keep the two seperate. The usual kind of ethical relativist argument goes like this. "Some people who mutilate the bodies of little girls do so because most people in their society believe such mutilation is morally necessary. It would be immoral for Americans to carry out such mutilations on their female children, since American culture forbids such mutilation, but the culture of these mutilators requires it, so these mutilators are not morally wrong to mutilate their female children.

Of course, ethical absolutism implies we have a moral duty to prevent suttee and female genital mutilation. Ethical relativism is usually held to imply that we have no moral duties to help people who are horribly killed or mutilated by people acting out of their own cultures, but I don't see how that can follow. Doesn't ethical relativism tell me that what is right or wrong for me depends on what my culture says is right or wrong? Aren't I an American? And aren't Americans supposed to stand up for the oppressed, wherever there might be?

Curiously, many ethical relativists seem to think that attempts by Americans to prevent mutilations would be morally wrong, even though American culture holds that making one's best effort to protect innocent people from things like mutilation is an absolute moral requirement. Some people think that ethical relativism justifies the claim that the missionaries were wrong to do what they did in Hawaii. It certainly does justify the claim that the Hawaiian people were not morally wrong to surf and go topless. They were acting according to their culture. But the missionaries were acting according to their culture! And we cannot argue that it is immoral to impose your values on another culture by force, because the missionaries' culture said that they had a moral duty to impose their values on others no matter what. After all, ethical relativism wasn't a part of European culture at that time. Similarly, althoughelativism says the British weren't morally wrong to ban suttee, it also says that the Indian men who forced women into horrible deaths weren't wrong to do it. Typically, ethical relativists will tell you that you, personally, should not make moral judgments about other cultures. The trouble with that is, if your culture says that you should make moral judgments about other cultures, then the ethical relativist is telling you to violate your own culture's values, and according to his doctrine, he doesn't have the right to do that! And remember, ethical relativism doesn't have to be just about culture. Any doctrine that says morality depends on what something or somebody says is right or wrong is a form of relativism. Thus we can have political ethical relativism, religious ethical relativism, personal ethical relativism, and so on.

Most people who believe in ethical relativism "argue" for it on the basis of the fact that different cultures have different ideas about morality. This of course assumes that if different cultures have different ideas about something, those ideas are true for people living in the culture concerned. So, if cultural differences in ideas about morality mean real differences in morality between cultures, then cultural differences in ideas about disease, chemistry and mathematics, for instance, mean real differences in disease, chemistry and mathematics between cultures, meaning that if you're part of a culture that believes disease is caused by demons, antibiotics that work in the United States will not work there, and you will need an exorcist to cure bronchitis. On the bright side, if your culture believes that waving a feather over a block of lead will turn it into gold, your money worries will be over. And math will be way easier if your culture believes that Pi is exactly equal to three.

Now consider the following hypothetical cases.

1. Suppose you are on a jury in a jurisdiction that allows a "morality" defense. In this jurisdiction, if it is proved that a particular action is morally right, that action cannot be illegal. The case before you involves a man who assaulted, tortured, and killed his sister who was seen to holding hands with a boy who was a member of another culture. It has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant's culture absolutely demands that he brutally kill his sister in such circumstances. As the only ethical relativist on the jury, what arguments do you use to convince the other jury members, all of whom want to impose the death penalty, that they should acquit the killer because he was only doing exactly what his culture said he should do.

2. Suppose you visit an island populated by innocent and harmless people. Also there are group of missionaries preparing t do what their culture says is moral, and forcibly convert the population to their own religion, stamp out many harmless and enjoyable customs, introduce many cruel and destructive social practices, and basically eradicate the island's existing culture. You remonstrate with the missionaries, but they angrily reply that how dare you attempt to prevent them from living by their own cultural values, pointing out that, according to their culture, they would be morally very wrong to not take over and colonize the island. As an ethical relativist,what arguments can you make to the missionaries that could make them give up their own most precious moral values, and refrain from imposing their values on the islanders?

3. Suppose you live on an island formerly populated by innocent and harmless people, but now dominated by a horrifically cruel racist theocracy. This theocracy now notices that you are an ethical relativist, and tells you that, since their culture abominates ethical relativism, they are going to execute you if you don't convert to their religion, and give up being an ethical relativist. As an ethical relativist,what arguments can you make to the missionaries that could make them give up their own most precious moral values, and refrain from iexecuting you if you don't give up being an ethical relativist?

4. Suppose you are in a recently-constructed prison, awaiting execution fro refusing to give up ethical relativism (or for not being a sufficiently sincere convert), but then you are busted out by a woman with a funny accent who drags you deep into the local rainforest. There you are introduced to a mixed group of ex-soldiers from countries that have historically been occupied by and oppressed by other countries. These soldiers explain that their ancestors had to endure oppression and cultural erasure at the hands of people just like the missionaries who recently took over the island, so they came here to liberate the island, and appropriately punish those missionaries who committed specific crimes against its people. You ask about their own individual cultures, and the soldiers all reply that they come from cultures of white suremacism and religious dominionism, all of which support the takeover, but they don't care what their cultures say about it. They value kindness and hate cruelty, and since the missionaries have stolen the land and cruely oppressed the people, they are going to fix that. As an ethical relativist, what can you say to the soldiers to convince them that they should follow their own cultures, and support the horrific cruelty of the missionary government?

5. Suppose that, as a moral relativist, you run into someone much larger and stronger than you, who belongs to a culture that follows moral absolutism except for one absolute, iron-clad cultural rule. This culture holds that it is an absolute moral imperitive to beat-up ethical relativists whenever encountered. So if a member of this culture encounters an ethical relativist and doesn't beat the tar out of them, they're doing something horribly morally wrong. Given that you are an ethical relativist, what should you tell this person that ethical relativism says that they should do to you, an ethical relativist?

6. Suppose that, as a moral relativist, you are being assaulted by a person from a culture that believes in beating up ethical relativists, when along come some of the soldiers from case 4, who offer to rescue you. As an ethical relativist, what can you say to thsee soldiers to convince them that they should allow your attacker to continue acting according to his own culture?

Given all the considerations above, do we have any rational reason to think that ethical relativism is true? If you think we do, explain that reason in a thesis paper. If you don't, write a thesis paper explaining why you don't. In either case, your paper should contain a full logical analysis, illustrated by discussion of at least some of the cases mentioned immediately above.

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: