So, I wrote this little essay about cultural relativism and objective vs. subjective ethics for another forum a while back. The forum was a political forum so what is written here is an abridged version where I've taken out all my rants about wage slavery under capitlism and related issues - as it would be out of place on this forum (thus it might be roughly edited in places where I've taken parts out).
Before I begin, let me make clear a common misconception. Cultural Relativism is not the same as respect for cultural differences (though this respect is certainly included with the CR theory). To reject cultural relativism does not mean that you reject a culture’s traditions, customs, music, language, and worldviews simply because they are different; that would be closed-minded and arrogant and not based in reason. Cultural relativism as an ethical theory only becomes relevant if you consider human “ethics” just as relative as non-ethical cultural traits. Chinese table manners and Mexican Quinceañeras are not ethical concerns, so they don’t count when we’re talking about refuting relativism in favor of objectivism. Most would agree (and rightfully so) that Cultural differences and diversity are all good things and generally increase the color in our lives. Diversity is exotic and enriching. This is because it belongs to the realm of subjective desires, aesthetics, and other aspects of life that have no profound moral effects that affect how we conduct ourselves with other people and influence their lives. Just as individuals have subjective desires and tastes, so too do groups of individuals who grow up together. There is nothing wrong with that until we get into an area where subjectivity breaks down – human ethics. Not Chinese ethics, not Western ethics, not Aztec ethics – human ethics: the study of values relating to human conduct with respect to the rightness or wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness or badness of the motives and ends of such actions. So, cultural relativism (CR) is an ethical theory that makes six basic claims, all of them independent of one another; that is to say some might be true while others aren’t, or all may be true or false in tandem:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people for all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
Response to #s 1 and 3:
These are merely descriptive claims, not normative or prescriptive claims. “A woman does not show her face in Saudi Arabia” is a descriptive statement; it describes what is. “A woman should not show her face in Saudi Arabia” on the other hand, is a prescriptive “ought” statement; it describes what ought to be. It is a fact that different cultures often have different moral codes, and no one is arguing against such an accurate description. When one begins to mix the descriptive with the prescriptive however, we get something called an invalid logical argument, that is, where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises - as shown in the syllogism below:
Premise: Saudis believe it is right to make grown women cover their faces in public. Most Americans do not believe that is morally acceptable.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally right for the Saudis to make women cover their faces, but not morally right for Americans to do so.
As you can see, the descriptive premise (what is) does not lend support to the prescriptive conclusion (what should be). The conclusion is invalid. It’s no different than the mock argument below:
Premise: Dogs bite when they are mad.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is good that dogs bite people.
Response to #4:
If #4 is true, it would mean that there are no universal ethical truths that hold for all peoples for all time, and that matters of right and wrong are relative to the culture in which we live. But if that is true, then isn’t the very idea: “there are no universal truths in ethics, therefore all our concepts of right and wrong are relative” itself a universal, non-relative ethical truth claim? Cultural relativists are saying that it is ethically true that there are no ethical truths. That’s a direct logical contradiction. Cultural relativism can’t possibly claim to be true in any objective sense since, according to its beliefs, there is no objective truth! Why do cultural relativists even bother promoting their idea since by their own criteria it’s just as valid as its theoretical opponent? We should try to avoid contradiction and inconsistency in our search for an ethical framework.
So, that proves that CR is invalid as well as contradictory, so now I’ll prove it’s inconsistent by examining the three consequences if in fact CR were true (assuming the logical contradiction above didn’t exist):
1. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of other societies.
2. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of our own society (since CR claims that whatever a society thinks is right, is in fact right by default for that society).
3. If cultural relativism were true, it would make moral progress impossible.
Consequence #1 is derived from the second, third, and sixth claims. If we cannot criticize the customs of other societies, we would have to sit idly by as people outside our society are tortured and murdered and raped. Legitimate harm would be befalling people (human beings just like us) and we would have to turn the other way. We would have to accept that physical and psychological harm to unwilling parties in this other society is in fact a good thing simply on the basis that it’s another culture.
Our inaction would then actually qualify as action in support of that harm (MLK brilliantly proves why inaction in the face of injustice = action in promotion of that injustice). The Nazi genocide of the Jews for instance would’ve had to have continued without outside intervention from the Allies lest this intervening party act immorally by saving the lives of innocent men, women, and children being executed and tortured on a daily basis. Genocide might be immoral to us, but it wasn’t immoral under Nazi Germany (according to CR), and our intervention would be violating Nazi Germany’s moral value structure, which would be immoral on our part. You can start to see how morally bankrupt CR is.
Consequence #2 is derived from the fifth claim of CR. We would not be morally permitted to question the ethics of our own culture, since our culture is what defines what is moral for us in the first place! But what if you truly disagree with the rules of your culture? Cultural relativism’s test for determining what is right or wrong is that you ask whether the action in question is in accordance with the customs of your culture at this point in its history - if so, then you’d be immoral to question it. If this theory were true, it would mean that CR is seriously oppressive since it does not need to offer any rational justification for imposing a particular cultural value on people. It’s the destruction of reason in favor of illegitimate, chaotic, baseless, social authority.
Consequence #3: Since cultural relativism makes it impossible to justifiably disagree with any practices that are in effect, the idea of moral progress is out of the question. To progress is to move forward, and to move forward is to change. And how can a society’s value structure be changed if that structure cannot be judged as deficient?
Luckily, not all of us are cultural relativists. Those who rejected cultural relativism have helped society evolve in ways that constitute not just differences, but improvements (universally in support of our species’ survival and enhancement of that survival across the board). Improvements explained as progressive recognition of objectively superior values. If our conceptions of right and wrong were based solely on our culture’s practices, it would be pretty hard to account for the ethical advances of our current civilization. Slavery has been virtually abolished worldwide. Worldwide rules of war have been adopted so that death doesn’t have to be so painful. Human sacrifice is no longer practiced as a religious ritual. Racial segregation is no longer a norm. Women should not be treated as property. All of which, most would agree, are objectively “good” things. None of this can happen under cultural relativism. None of this can happen without people who are brave enough to question the status quo. Social reformers claim that they are judging their culture against a standard of an ideal society that transcends culture because it is based on logic, reason, empiricism, and properly derived justice instead of blind authority and chaos in the name of respecting difference. As autonomous individuals, we should work for an objective framework for ethics, an ethics that works for all humans for all time and debate about it with each other in an attempt to make a better, more ethical world in an objective sense - and I think I've shown why it’s the only “true” kind of ethics there can be.
So to conclude, CR is illogical, it is contradictory, it is inconsistent, and it fails to offer an explanation for worldwide social progress. But again, non-moral cultural traits and differences are not subject to objectivity because human beings are naturally social animals with a diverse range of aesthetic tastes. These things appeal to our relative desires and their existence are no threat to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics on the other hand is different as it applies universally to everyone because it deals directly with threats to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics concerns life and death, good and evil, rights and freedom – for all constituents of our species universally. These things, as shown above, just cannot (and should not) be relative.
And please keep in mind that objective ethics = /= universal (as in cosmic) ethics like with theism. From where I'm arguing, there are no laws of physics that provide a moral framework, there are no cosmic moral authorities. But considering our nature as a species, we can determine through logic and science what is objectively in our best interest as individuals and as societies. This is what most philosophers refer to when they talk about objective ethics.
Before I begin, let me make clear a common misconception. Cultural Relativism is not the same as respect for cultural differences (though this respect is certainly included with the CR theory). To reject cultural relativism does not mean that you reject a culture’s traditions, customs, music, language, and worldviews simply because they are different; that would be closed-minded and arrogant and not based in reason. Cultural relativism as an ethical theory only becomes relevant if you consider human “ethics” just as relative as non-ethical cultural traits. Chinese table manners and Mexican Quinceañeras are not ethical concerns, so they don’t count when we’re talking about refuting relativism in favor of objectivism. Most would agree (and rightfully so) that Cultural differences and diversity are all good things and generally increase the color in our lives. Diversity is exotic and enriching. This is because it belongs to the realm of subjective desires, aesthetics, and other aspects of life that have no profound moral effects that affect how we conduct ourselves with other people and influence their lives. Just as individuals have subjective desires and tastes, so too do groups of individuals who grow up together. There is nothing wrong with that until we get into an area where subjectivity breaks down – human ethics. Not Chinese ethics, not Western ethics, not Aztec ethics – human ethics: the study of values relating to human conduct with respect to the rightness or wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness or badness of the motives and ends of such actions. So, cultural relativism (CR) is an ethical theory that makes six basic claims, all of them independent of one another; that is to say some might be true while others aren’t, or all may be true or false in tandem:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no “universal truth” in ethics – that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people for all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures.
Response to #s 1 and 3:
These are merely descriptive claims, not normative or prescriptive claims. “A woman does not show her face in Saudi Arabia” is a descriptive statement; it describes what is. “A woman should not show her face in Saudi Arabia” on the other hand, is a prescriptive “ought” statement; it describes what ought to be. It is a fact that different cultures often have different moral codes, and no one is arguing against such an accurate description. When one begins to mix the descriptive with the prescriptive however, we get something called an invalid logical argument, that is, where the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises - as shown in the syllogism below:
Premise: Saudis believe it is right to make grown women cover their faces in public. Most Americans do not believe that is morally acceptable.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is morally right for the Saudis to make women cover their faces, but not morally right for Americans to do so.
As you can see, the descriptive premise (what is) does not lend support to the prescriptive conclusion (what should be). The conclusion is invalid. It’s no different than the mock argument below:
Premise: Dogs bite when they are mad.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is good that dogs bite people.
Response to #4:
If #4 is true, it would mean that there are no universal ethical truths that hold for all peoples for all time, and that matters of right and wrong are relative to the culture in which we live. But if that is true, then isn’t the very idea: “there are no universal truths in ethics, therefore all our concepts of right and wrong are relative” itself a universal, non-relative ethical truth claim? Cultural relativists are saying that it is ethically true that there are no ethical truths. That’s a direct logical contradiction. Cultural relativism can’t possibly claim to be true in any objective sense since, according to its beliefs, there is no objective truth! Why do cultural relativists even bother promoting their idea since by their own criteria it’s just as valid as its theoretical opponent? We should try to avoid contradiction and inconsistency in our search for an ethical framework.
So, that proves that CR is invalid as well as contradictory, so now I’ll prove it’s inconsistent by examining the three consequences if in fact CR were true (assuming the logical contradiction above didn’t exist):
1. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of other societies.
2. If cultural relativism were true, we could no longer criticize the customs of our own society (since CR claims that whatever a society thinks is right, is in fact right by default for that society).
3. If cultural relativism were true, it would make moral progress impossible.
Consequence #1 is derived from the second, third, and sixth claims. If we cannot criticize the customs of other societies, we would have to sit idly by as people outside our society are tortured and murdered and raped. Legitimate harm would be befalling people (human beings just like us) and we would have to turn the other way. We would have to accept that physical and psychological harm to unwilling parties in this other society is in fact a good thing simply on the basis that it’s another culture.
Our inaction would then actually qualify as action in support of that harm (MLK brilliantly proves why inaction in the face of injustice = action in promotion of that injustice). The Nazi genocide of the Jews for instance would’ve had to have continued without outside intervention from the Allies lest this intervening party act immorally by saving the lives of innocent men, women, and children being executed and tortured on a daily basis. Genocide might be immoral to us, but it wasn’t immoral under Nazi Germany (according to CR), and our intervention would be violating Nazi Germany’s moral value structure, which would be immoral on our part. You can start to see how morally bankrupt CR is.
Consequence #2 is derived from the fifth claim of CR. We would not be morally permitted to question the ethics of our own culture, since our culture is what defines what is moral for us in the first place! But what if you truly disagree with the rules of your culture? Cultural relativism’s test for determining what is right or wrong is that you ask whether the action in question is in accordance with the customs of your culture at this point in its history - if so, then you’d be immoral to question it. If this theory were true, it would mean that CR is seriously oppressive since it does not need to offer any rational justification for imposing a particular cultural value on people. It’s the destruction of reason in favor of illegitimate, chaotic, baseless, social authority.
Consequence #3: Since cultural relativism makes it impossible to justifiably disagree with any practices that are in effect, the idea of moral progress is out of the question. To progress is to move forward, and to move forward is to change. And how can a society’s value structure be changed if that structure cannot be judged as deficient?
Luckily, not all of us are cultural relativists. Those who rejected cultural relativism have helped society evolve in ways that constitute not just differences, but improvements (universally in support of our species’ survival and enhancement of that survival across the board). Improvements explained as progressive recognition of objectively superior values. If our conceptions of right and wrong were based solely on our culture’s practices, it would be pretty hard to account for the ethical advances of our current civilization. Slavery has been virtually abolished worldwide. Worldwide rules of war have been adopted so that death doesn’t have to be so painful. Human sacrifice is no longer practiced as a religious ritual. Racial segregation is no longer a norm. Women should not be treated as property. All of which, most would agree, are objectively “good” things. None of this can happen under cultural relativism. None of this can happen without people who are brave enough to question the status quo. Social reformers claim that they are judging their culture against a standard of an ideal society that transcends culture because it is based on logic, reason, empiricism, and properly derived justice instead of blind authority and chaos in the name of respecting difference. As autonomous individuals, we should work for an objective framework for ethics, an ethics that works for all humans for all time and debate about it with each other in an attempt to make a better, more ethical world in an objective sense - and I think I've shown why it’s the only “true” kind of ethics there can be.
So to conclude, CR is illogical, it is contradictory, it is inconsistent, and it fails to offer an explanation for worldwide social progress. But again, non-moral cultural traits and differences are not subject to objectivity because human beings are naturally social animals with a diverse range of aesthetic tastes. These things appeal to our relative desires and their existence are no threat to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics on the other hand is different as it applies universally to everyone because it deals directly with threats to the fabric and nature of humanity. Ethics concerns life and death, good and evil, rights and freedom – for all constituents of our species universally. These things, as shown above, just cannot (and should not) be relative.
And please keep in mind that objective ethics = /= universal (as in cosmic) ethics like with theism. From where I'm arguing, there are no laws of physics that provide a moral framework, there are no cosmic moral authorities. But considering our nature as a species, we can determine through logic and science what is objectively in our best interest as individuals and as societies. This is what most philosophers refer to when they talk about objective ethics.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire