Day 3 - Subjectivism... or we're both right and Sally Struthers is too!

So let's review.  According to my instructor, any ethical system needs to have three things:

1. Rationality - otherwise it would be incoherent
2. Impartiality - principles need to apply across the board
3. Common principles - need common definitions at the outset

As a Christian I can see why the above three are true.  God's law is meant to be understood, His principles apply to all people, and His definitions are grounded in His character.  I haven't yet asked my teacher what gives him the authority to decide what ethical systems need, but the opportunity just hasn't come up yet.  I'd rather not try to bend the class discussion to my will (as much as I would LOVE to) because after all he is the teacher, not me.

Cultural relativism results when you abandon rule number three.  You can think of cultural relativism as there are high walls around each culture to protect it from other cultures, but those high walls are also a prison where all the people inside must obey the culture to be moral.

Chapter three of the book was called "Subjectivism in Ethics" where it seems to abandon rule number two.  What happens if ethical principles do not apply across the board?

Quite simply, subjectivism means that there are no moral facts.  If this is the case then this leads to some interesting results.

Simple Subjectivsm

Simple subjectivism means that all moral beliefs are just expressions of approval or disapproval.  Let's say that Bill says, "Lying is wrong".  If a moral belief is just an expression of approval or disapproval, then Bill's statement on lying only means, "I disapprove of lying."  Now Ted comes along and says, "Lying is okay."  Then all that Ted is really saying is, "I approve of lying."

One of the problems of simple subjectivism is that people can never disagree.  On the surface it seems as though they are disagreeing.  But here's where it gets weird.  Can Bill truthfully say, "I agree that Ted says lying is okay," and Ted can truthfully say, "I agree that Bill says lying is wrong".  Can you see that they are both agreeing with each other?  Both Bill and Ted are agreeing with what the other person is saying because what the other person thinks has no bearing on what Bill or Ted thinks.  Furthermore, there is no need for Bill or Ted to try to make the other agree because they are both really agreeing with each other!  Now if believe that Bill and Ted are really disagreeing with each other, then simple subjectivism is not for you (and I hope it's not).

The other problem with simple subjectivsm is that people can never be wrong about their moral statements.  When Bill said, "Lying is wrong" it does not matter at all if lying is REALLY wrong, all that matters to Bill is what he thinks and why should he go against what he thinks?  If he some day does go against what he thinks and changes his mind, well then that's fine, I guess.  Simple subjectivism is purely autobiographical in nature.

Emotivism

The other flavor of subjectivism is called emotivsm and is a bit more sophisticated.  When Bill says, "Lying is wrong," all he is really saying (or emoting) is "Lying - Yuck!"  When Ted says, "Lying is okay," all he is really saying is "Lying - Hooray!"  To an emotivist, all of morality is just about the feeling you get when you disapprove or approve of something.  Now these statements that Bill and Ted made are neither right nor wrong, but they are just expressing emotions.

This view also leads to some interesting problems.  With emotivism, you can try to convince someone else to your own point of view.  But your argument cannot be rational in nature (rule one above) because all moral statements are emotional.  So in order to persuade someone else you need to persuade them to share the same emotions as you do (where's Sally Stuthers when you need her?).

 

So emotivism allows for disagreement, but not about any facts.


So what does the Christian make of all of the above discussion?  Are morals just opinion?  Are they just emotions?  My teacher ended the class with this picture from the civil rights movement era:

Swell, eh?  Three students decided to have a sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter.  At first the crowd was taunting and jeering them, then they started dumping food on them, eventually started kicking them, and the three protesters had to be escorted out of there by police.

Are the two sides above really just having differences in opinion?  Are the two sides just having a different emotions over the topic of equality?  When my teacher was talking about this picture it he even got a little choked up.  I will admit, it is an extremely powerful picture.

But why? If morality is not based on a culture, opinion, or emotions what is there left for it to be based on?  How about God?  It is the one thing that non-believers dare not admit because then they must realize that their fallen nature condemns them before God's perfect nature.  They will go out of their way, write volumes upon volumes of books, speak to as many people as possible to convince them that they're right, but their anti-God theories can never be right because they go against the law that their Creator has put in their hearts.  Their theories will always be full of holes, logical inconsistencies, and just go against the simple fact that there ARE moral facts.

So why is the above picture so powerful?  I don't want to say that the above actions are just 'wrong' because that term has been so overused that it has become generic.  How about despicable?  Morally repulsive?  Sickening? Atrocious?  Sinful?  Ideas such as right/wrong, wonderful/atrocious can only make sense when viewed in the light of God's word.

Day 2 - Cultural Relativism or... The only judgement possible is that you can't judge others

Well today was a surprise.  I assumed that the book would be all about and gung-ho about cultural relativism, but I was wrong.

Sort of.

Straight from the book, here are five claims that have been made by cultural relativists.

1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society's code as better than another's.  There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures.  We should always be tolerant of them.

Now the book says that there are some things that are attractive about cultural relativism.  One is that it's hard to escape your cultural conditioning (can you really know for sure what it would be like to be a cannibal?).  Two is that there can be a blurred distinction between tastes versus morality (some dress doesn't matter [what hat to wear] and some dress does [like not wearing clothes at all]).  Finally, the way we're raised can limit our expectations (Henry Harlow did social experiments on baby monkeys.  Read about it here and now image some guy in Romania doing it to orphans.  True story).

Well the problems with cultural relativism are legion.  #3 is self-contradictory.  It says that there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.  But is that statement true?  If so then it contradicts itself and therefore cannot be true!  Also, is #5 itself an arrogant and judgmental statement?  Does it sound very tolerant to you?  Furthermore, didn't these 'rules of cultural relativism' come from within some culture?  And if so why should we believe any of these rules since they are subject to the culture that came up with them?

So here are the reasons against cultural relativism as espoused by the book and the instructor.

1. If cultural relativism were true, there would be no moral growth in a society/culture.

I asked the teacher about moral growth, "Isn't moral growth implying an outside standard to which you are growing towards?  In other words, moral growth implies there is some moral standard out there and we ought to grow towards it, rather than away.  My teacher replied, "You're right.  If there was no such thing as moral growth, there would only be moral change.  We need to take into account our moral intuitions."

I had been waiting for him to bring up intuitions again so I asked, "But if we rely on our intuitions, don't we have to then intuit that our intuitions are correct?"

He replied, "It would be nice to start with a blank slate and just the first principles.  But you would have to persuade me that my intuitions (the class previously had a discussion on slavery) are wrong."

I would agree that his intuitions about slavery are correct, but what I would have liked to know is how or where does he ground those intuitions? But there were a lot of other hands raised so we couldn't keep going back and forth.  However, I would have asked him other questions like, "Well, perhaps I have an intuition to steal.  Why should I follow some intuitions as opposed to other ones?"  Intuition is a very important moral concept, but it can only be understood for what it is as a Christian (God's law written on the heart).  The non-believer has no ground for why to pick one intuition over another.

2. If cultural relativism were true then civil disobedience would be morally wrong.
What this means is that a cannibal who is reluctant to eat other people would be morally wrong to do so because he is in the culture that says eating other people is right.

3. It is just not the case anymore that people are in just one single culture.
I'd have to agree with this one too.

So the book doesn't like cultural relativism, but isn't exactly against it either.  Here is how the book summarizes the chapter:

"We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, despite its shortcomings.  It is an attractive theory because it is based on a genuine insight: that many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are really only cultural products.  Moreover, keeping this thought firmly in view is important if we want to avoid arrogance and keep an open mind.  These are important points, not to be taken lightly.  But we can accept them without accepting the whole theory."*

So it is true that different cultures do different things.  Yet some of those things that cultures have done are wrong.  Not just wrong for them, but things that would be wrong for all people at all times.  No one lives in a purely culturally relativistic way.  And it's not just because we prefer our own culture over others, the heart of the matter lies in the existence of objective moral values and duties that people are obligated to obey.  A cultural relativist couldn't handle that, and for that matter neither could a moral relativist.

Avoiding arrogance and keeping an open mind?  Says who?  Being not-arrogant is a fine virtue, but can only be properly understood if God exists.  Otherwise, why not be arrogant?  Why does some other person get to decide for me what things to be arrogant over and not?  And again, keeping an open mind is just not possible.  Everyone will always have some base/core presuppositions by which he/she will judge all matters.

Remember how my teacher was talking about how it would be nice to have a blank slate and just the first principles?  Having just a blank slate wouldn't get anybody anywhere so we do need some place to start.  That place to start is what he called the 'first principles' which are usually the first three laws of logic.  Funny thing about those first three laws of logic.  Can there be any universal and immaterial laws of logic if God does not exist?  If all is only matter and space flowing through time (i.e. naturalism) how could some immaterial law of logic even exist?  Also, if there is no God sustaining and upholding all of creation, how could we even begin to think that laws of logic could be universal in nature when all we experience are only particulars?

More on logic some other time.


* The Elements of Moral Philosophy, sixth edition, by James Rachels, McGraw Hill Higher Education, New York, 2010, page 31

More stupidity from the book.

More gems of poo from my illustrious textbook...

"Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must let our feelings be guided as much as possible by reason.  This is the essence of morality.  The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments."

"Almost every theory of morality includes the idea of impartiality.  This is the idea that each individual's interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment."

Where to begin?  Let's say that morally right thing to do is always best supported by the arguments.  But how are we to decide which argument is better than another?  We must be impartial, fair, and neutral.

This certainly sounds like a noble thing to do.  Yes, let's elevate the autonomous human mind and get rid of all preconceptions and become completely neutral to all things.  Then we will certainly find the truth!

But there's a problem.  A huge one.  If it were possible to become absolutely neutral in all matters, then where would we begin in order to start making choices?  Complete neutrality, if possible, would be like a painter in front of a blank canvas.  But the thing is that painter has no idea where to begin!  Even if the painter should choose to begin somewhere he would have no idea whether or not he is painting correctly!

Day 1 - Unargued assumptions and more

So it was the first day of ethics class.  As I usually do I tried to arrive early so I could sit in the back corner of the room and claim that as 'my seat'.  Usually it takes about one or two classes for everyone to settle down and find 'their' seat and I want the back corner.  Why?  Well, in a nutshell one should always be ready and if you're in the back corner of the room no one can attack you from behind.  Or you could read here for a more complete manswer.

Anyway, class started and the first thing out of the teacher's mouth was that this is NOT a course in how you 'ought' to act (bummer), rather it was more about how people act in certain situations.  He also said that you are free to make decisions for yourself (hooray, a relativist!).  That's worth noting for a later class period.


The first part of the class was spent discussing little ethical situations that he came up with.  Now he didn't want us to see if the actions the characters made were correct, rather he wanted us to think if there was an ethical decision being made and what the ethical decisions were.  There were three situations where there was a choice A and a choice B.  With all the B choices, he said that there seemed to be some expectation that was being violated.  In one instance a person's rights were denied, human dignity was another, and a third dealt with fairness).

The first assignment or... killing babies!

Okay, I will admit to some sensationalism (just a little) but hey, one must draw readers some how, right?  :)  But this first assignment doesn't have to do with abortion, rather it has to do with the killing of a conjoined twin.

During Chapter One of our textbook, Rachels (the author, not my wife) discusses the case of two conjoined twins - Jodie and Mary - whose parents objected to an operation that would separate them at the risk of killing one or both of their daughters.


Please discuss this example.  Include a discussion of all those whose interests are at stake, and what those interests are.  Discuss your understanding of the Lord Justice's reasoning (as presented by Rachels); in your view does this reasoning adequately address the objections of the parents?

Below is what I plan to hand in on Wednesday.  Feel free to comment and/or offer corrections!