Cultural Relativism

Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes

The Callatians, who lived in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The Greeks, of course, did not
do that—the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way
to dispose of the dead. The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances, and
their customs turned out to be very different from ours. The men often had more than one wife, and
they would share their wives with guests, lending them out for the night as a sign of hospitality.
Moreover, within a community, a dominant male might demand—and get—regular sexual access to
other men’s wives. The women, however, were free to break these arrangements simply by leaving
their husbands and taking up with new partners—free, that is, so long as their former husbands
chose not to make too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile practice
that bore little resemblance to our custom.

Cultural Relativism
Main Idea: “Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there are no universal moral
truths, the customs
of different societies are all that exist.

The following claims have all been made by cultural relativists:

1. Different societies have different moral codes; that a certain action is right, then that action is
right, at least within that society.
2. 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.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many.
4. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerant of them.
 5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code
of a society says it is.

The Cultural Differences Argument

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
3. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

What Follows from Cultural Relativism

1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism

First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all of our
practices are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not. Some of our customs are
merely conventional—merely peculiar to our society—and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. Cultural
Relativism begins with the insight that many of our practices are like this—they are only cultural
products.

The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. As we grow up, we develop strong feelings
about things: We learn to see some types of behavior as acceptable, and other types as outrageous.

Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind of dogmatism. Realizing this can help broaden
our minds. We can see that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth— they may be
due to cultural conditioning and nothing more.

Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are really only cultural products.
Morality and Religion

The Presumed Connection between Morality and Religion

In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can
be understood only in the context of religion. Thus the clergy are assumed to be authorities on
morality.
When viewed from a non-religious perspective, the universe seems to be a cold, meaningless place,
devoid of value and purpose.

The Divine Command Theory

The basic idea is that God decides what is right and wrong. Actions that God commands are morally
required; actions that God forbids are morally wrong, and all other actions are permissible or merely
morally neutral.

This theory has a number of attractive features.

It immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of
personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is
right if God commands it and wrong if God forbids it.
The Divine Command Theory explains why any of us should bother with morality. Why shouldn’t
we just look out for ourselves? If immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, then there is
an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems with the theory.

Atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists.
But there are difficulties even for believers. One can be skeptical and ask, is a conduct right
because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is a question
of whether God makes the moral truths true or whether he merely recognizes that they’re true.

First, we might say that right conduct is right because God commands it. But this idea encounters
several difficulties.

1. This conception of morality is mysterious.

2. This conception of morality makes God’s commands arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.

The second option has a different drawback.

In taking it, we abandon the theological conception of right and wrong. When we say that God
commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard that is
independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to God’s command and is the reason for the
command.
Other Normative Systems

We can also better understand morality by contrasting its principles with those of other normative systems. Each of these represents
a set of standards for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that we should not break.

There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus to four of the most important of them: those that govern the law, etiquette,
self-interest, and tradition.

Law

The fact that a law tells us to do something does not settle the question of whether morality gives its stamp of approval.
Some immoral acts (like cheating on a spouse) are not illegal. And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism of a dictator) are not
immoral. Certainly, many laws require what morality requires and forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and that
shows that morality is something different from the law. That a legislature passed a bill is not enough to show that the bill is morally
acceptable.

Etiquette

We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of etiquette. Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t
immoral to set them on the right. Good manners are not the same thing as morally good conduct. Morality sometimes requires us not
to be polite or gracious, as when someone threatens your children or happily tells you a racist joke. So the standards of etiquette can
depart from those of morality.

Self-interest

The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-interest. Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in life by betraying
others, lying about their past, breaking the rules that others are following. It’s an unhappy thought, but a very commonsensical one:
you sometimes can improve your lot in life by acting immorally. And those who behave virtuously are sometimes punished, rather
than rewarded, for it. Whistleblowers who reveal a company’s or a government official’s corruption are often attacked for their efforts
sued to the point of bankruptcy, and targeted for their courageous behavior. Though the relation between self-interest and morality is
contested, it is a plausible starting point to assume that morality can sometimes require us to sacrifice our well-being, and that we
can sometimes improve
our lot in life by acting unethically.

Tradition

Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition. That a practice has been around a long time does not automatically make it moral.
Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as it did when people called for the abolition of slavery or for allowing women to
vote. And some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be morally excellent. The longevity of a practice is not a foolproof test
of its morality.
 
Morality
and
Religion
The Minimum Conception of Morality

The Minimum Conception of Morality

We may now state the minimum conception: Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s
conduct by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing—while giving equal
weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action.

This paints a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral
agent is someone who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or
she does; who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who accepts principles of conduct
only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified; who will “listen to reason” even when it
means revising prior convictions; and who, finally, is willing to
act on these deliberations.

As one might expect, not every ethical theory accepts this “minimum.” This picture of the
conscientious moral agent has been disputed in various ways. However, theories that reject it
encounter serious difficulties. This is why most moral theories embrace the minimum conception, in
one form or another.
Moral Reasoning in Ethical Issues

Reason and Impartiality

Moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and second, morality requires the impartial
consideration of each individual’s interests.

Moral Reasoning
When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the truth is,
without even having to consider arguments on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely
on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational; they may be
nothing but the by-products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.

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. Of course, not every reason that may be advanced is a good reason.
There are bad arguments as well as good ones, and much of the skill of moral thinking consists in
discerning the difference.

The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The facts exist independently of our wishes, and
responsible moral thinking begins when we try to see things as they are.

Next, we can bring moral principles into play. In our three examples, a number of principles were
involved: that we should not “use” people; that we should not kill one person to save another; that we
should do what will benefit the people affected by our actions; that every life is sacred; and that it is
wrong to discriminate against the handicapped. Most moral arguments consist of principles being
applied to particular cases, and so we must ask whether the principles are justified and whether they
are being applied correctly.

The rote application of routine methods is never a satisfactory substitute for critical thinking, in any
area. Morality is no exception.

The Requirement of Impartiality

Almost every important moral theory includes the idea of impartiality. This is the idea that each
individual’s interests are equally important; no one should get special treatment. At the same time,
impartiality requires that we do not treat the members of particular groups as inferior, and thus it
condemns forms of discrimination like sexism and racism.
Moral Starting Points (part 2)

...this is a continuation from the previous page.

7. Deliberately hurting other people requires justification. The default position in ethics is this: do no
harm. It is sometimes morally acceptable to harm others, but there must be an excellent reason for
doing so or else the harmful behavior is unjustified.

8. Equals ought to be treated equally. People who are alike in all relevant respects should get similar
treatment. When this fails to happen—when racist or sexist policies are enacted, for instance—then
something has gone wrong.

9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration. How well-off we are is important. But it isn’t the
only thing of moral importance. Morality sometimes calls on us to set aside our own interests for the
sake of others.

10. Agony is bad. Excruciating physical or emotional pain is bad. It may sometimes be appropriate to
cause such extreme suffering, but doing so requires a very powerful justification.

11. Might doesn’t make right. People in power can get away with lots of things that the rest of us
can’t. That doesn’t justify what they do. That a person can escape punishment is one thing—whether
his actions are morally acceptable is another.

12. Free and informed requests prevent rights violations. If, with eyes wide open and no one twisting
your arm, you ask someone to do something for you, and she does it, then your rights have not been
violated— even if you end up hurt as a result.

There are a number of points to make about these claims.

First, this short list isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It could be made much longer.
Second, we are not claiming that the items on this list are beyond criticism. We are only saying
that each one is very plausible. Hard thinking might weaken our confidence in some cases. The
point, though, is that without such scrutiny, it is perfectly reasonable to begin our moral thinking
with the items on this list.
Third, many of these claims require interpretation in order to apply them in a satisfying way. When
we say, for instance, that equals ought to be treated equally, we leave all of the interesting
 questions open. (What makes people equals? Can we treat people equally without treating them
in precisely the same way? And so on.)

A morality that celebrates genocide, torture, treachery, sadism, hostility, and slavery is, depending on
how you look at it, either no morality at all or a deeply failed one. Any morality worth the name will
place some importance on justice, fairness, kindness, and reasonableness.
Moral Starting Points (part 1)

One of the puzzles about moral thinking is knowing where to begin. Some skeptics about morality
deny that there are any proper starting points for ethical reflection. They believe that moral reasoning
is simply a way of rationalizing our biases and gut feelings. This outlook encourages us to be lax in
moral argument and, worse, supports an attitude that no moral views are any better than others.
While this sort of skepticism might be true, we shouldn’t regard it as the default view of ethics. We
should accept it only as a last resort.

In the meantime, let’s consider some fairly plausible ethical assumptions, claims that can get us
started in our moral thinking. The point of the exercise is to soften you up to the idea that we are not
just spinning our wheels when thinking
morally. There are reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live. Here
are some of them:

1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism. The law does not have the final word
on what is right and wrong. Neither does tradition. Actions that are legal, or customary, are
sometimes morally mistaken.
2. Everyone is morally fallible. Everyone has some mistaken ethical views, and no human being is
wholly wise when it
comes to moral matters.
3. Friendship is valuable. Having friends is a good thing. Friendships add value to your life. You are
better off when there are people you care deeply about, and who care deeply about you.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible. Morality can demand only so much of us. Moral
standards that are impossible to meet are illegitimate. Morality must respect our limitations.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults. Moral responsibility assumes an ability on our
part to understand options, to make decisions in an informed way, and to let our decisions guide
our behavior. The fewer of these abilities you have, the less blameworthy you are for any harm
you might cause.
6. Justice is a very important moral good. Any moral theory that treats justice as irrelevant is deeply
suspect. It is important that we get what we deserve, and that we are treated fairly.
The Branches of Moral Philosophy

We all know that there are lots of moral questions. So it might help to impose some organization on
them. This will enable us to see the basic contours of moral philosophy and also to better appreciate
the fundamental questions in each part of the field, you are about to study.

There are three core areas of moral philosophy:

1. Value theory
What is the good life?
What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
How do we improve our lot in life?
What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as well-being?
2. Normative ethics
What are our fundamental moral duties?
What makes right actions right?
Which character traits count as virtues, which as vices, and why?
Who should our role models be?
Do the ends always justify the means, or are there certain types of action that should never be
done under any circumstances?

3. Metaethics
What is the status of moral claims and advice?
Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them
true?
Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
Do we always have a good reason to do our moral duty?
What Is Morality?
Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) /
Objectives

At the end of the session, we should be able to:

1. Differentiate conventional morality from critical
morality
2. Distinguish moral problems from non - moral one’s
3. Analyse a value/moral judgement
Basic Concepts

•Moral Issue
•Moral Judgment – right/wrong,
good/bad
•Moral Decision
Moral Issue and Moral Judgment:
The Case of Jodie and Mary
• In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island south
of Italy, discovered that she was carrying conjoined twins.
• Knowing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were
inadequate to deal with such a birth, she and her husband
went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester, England.
• The infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at the
lower abdomen. Their spines were fused, and they had one
heart and one pair of lungs between them. Jodie, the
stronger one, was providing blood for her sister.
• But the outlook for Mary and Jodie were grim.
• The doctors said that without intervention the
girls would die within six months. The only hope
was an operation to separate them. This would
save Jodie, but Mary would die immediately.
• Would it be right or wrong to separate the
twins?
Activity 1

In the case of Jodie and Mary the

right thing to do is…………..
because…………………
Activity 2

•Based on the activity above, how do you

propose to define Morality / Ethics?
What Is Morality?
• There is no widely agreed-on definition of morality.
The absence of a definition does not leave us entirely
in the dark, however.
• What we can do is to get a good sense of our subject
matter by doing two things:
1. Being clear about the difference between
conventional and critical morality
2. Distinguishing morality with other normative
systems.
Conventional and Critical Morality
• Conventional Morality
the system of widely accepted rules and principles, that
members of a culture or society use to govern their own
lives.
the patterns of behaviour to be found in the cultures,
their accepted ideas about right and wrong, and the
sorts of character traits that these cultures find
admirable.
conventional morality can differ from society to society.
Conventional and Critical Morality
• Critical Morality
 It refers to the moral standards that are independent of
conventional morality and can be used to critically evaluate its
merits.
 It is untainted by mistaken beliefs, irrationality, or popular
prejudices.
 It can serve as the standard for determining when
conventional morality has got it right and when it has fallen
into error.
• This is the morality whose nature we are going to explore in this
session.
Three core areas of moral philosophy
1. Value theory
• What is the good life?
• What is worth pursuing for its own sake?
• How do we improve our lot in life?
• What is happiness, and is it the very same thing as
well-being?
Three core areas of moral philosophy
2. Normative ethics
• What are our fundamental moral duties?
• What makes right actions right?
• Which character traits count as virtues, which as vices,
and why?
• Who should our role models be?
• Do the ends always justify the means, or are there
certain types of action that should never be done under
any circumstances?
Three core areas of moral philosophy
3. Metaethics
• What is the status of moral claims and advice?
• Can ethical theories, moral principles, or specific
moral verdicts be true? If so, what makes them
true?
• Can we gain moral wisdom? If so, how?
• Do we always have a good reason to do our moral
duty?
Moral Starting Points (Part 1)
1. Neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral
criticism.
2. Everyone is morally fallible.
3. Friendship is valuable.
4. We are not obligated to do the impossible.
5. Children bear less moral responsibility than adults.
6. Justice is a very important moral good.
Moral Starting Points (Part 2)
7. Deliberately hurting other people requires
justification.
8. Equals ought to be treated equally.
9. Self-interest isn’t the only ethical consideration.
10.Agony/suffering is bad.
11.Might does not make right.
12.Free and informed requests prevent rights
violations.
Quick Exercise: Morality and Other Normative Systems
Directions: 1. Unscramble each of the clue words.
2. Copy the letters in the numbered cells to other cells
with the same number.
Answers:
LAW
ETIQUETTE
SELF-INTEREST
TRADITION

OTHER NORMATIVE SYSTEMS

Morality and Other Normative Systems
• We can also better understand morality by contrasting its
principles with those of other normative systems.
• Other normative systems also represent a set of standards
for how we ought to behave, ideals to aim for, rules that
we should not break but are different from morality.
• There are many such systems, but let’s restrict our focus to
four of the most important of them: those that govern the
law, etiquette, self-interest, and tradition.
Law
• The fact that a law tells us to do something does not
necessarily mean that it is the moral act to do.
• Some immoral acts (like cheating on an exam) are not illegal.
And some illegal acts (like voicing criticism against a dictator)
are not immoral.
• Certainly, many laws require what morality requires and
forbid what morality forbids. But the fit is hardly perfect, and
that shows that morality is something different from the law.
That a legislature passed a bill is not enough to show that
the bill is morally acceptable.
• Give examples of acts that are considered not
illegal but immoral.
• Give examples of acts that are considered legal
but immoral.
Etiquette
• We see the same imperfect fit when it comes to standards of
etiquette.
• Forks are supposed to be set to the left of a plate, but it isn’t
immoral to set them on the right.
• Good manners are not the same thing as morally good conduct.
Morality sometimes requires us not to be polite or gracious, as
when someone threatens your children or happily tells you a
racist joke.
• So the standards of etiquette can depart from those of morality.
Self-interest
• The same is true when it comes to the standards of self-interest.
• Think of all of the people who have gotten ahead in life by betraying
others, lying about their past, breaking the rules that others are
following.
• Sometimes you can improve your lot in life by acting immorally. And
those who behave virtuously are sometimes punished, rather than
rewarded, for it.
• Whistle blowers who reveal a company’s or a government official’s
corruption are often attacked for their efforts, sued to the point of
bankruptcy, and targeted for their courageous behavior.
Tradition
• Finally, morality is also distinct from tradition.
• That a practice has been around a long time does not
automatically make it moral.
• Morality sometimes requires a break with the past, as it did
when people called for the abolition of slavery or for
allowing women to vote.
• And some nontraditional, highly innovative practices may be
morally excellent.
• The longevity of a practice is not a fool proof test of its
morality.
Simple Assessment Task
Directions: Tell whether the judgment in each statement is based
on law, etiquette, self-interest, tradition, and morality.

1.Cheating during an exam is bad.

Simple Assessment Task
Directions: Tell whether the judgment in each statement is based
on law, etiquette, self-interest, tradition, and morality.

2. Criticizing a dictator is wrong.

Simple Assessment Task
Directions: Tell whether the judgment in each statement is based
on law, etiquette, self-interest, tradition, and morality.

3. While eating, it is wrong to talk while your

mouth is full.
Simple Assessment Task
Directions: Tell whether the judgment in each statement is based
on law, etiquette, self-interest, tradition, and morality.

4. Wearing a black outfit during a

wedding ceremony is bad.
Simple Assessment Task
Directions: Tell whether the judgment in each statement is based
on law, etiquette, self-interest, tradition, and morality.

5. Murder is wrong.
The Presumed Connection between Morality
and Religion
• In popular thinking,
morality and religion are
inseparable: People
commonly believe that
morality can be understood
only in the context of
religion.
• Is there morality without
God?
The Divine Command Theory
• The basic idea is that God decides what is right
and wrong.
• Actions that God commands are morally
required; actions that God forbids are morally
wrong; and all other actions are permissible or
merely morally neutral.
The Divine Command Theory
• This theory has a number of attractive features.
• It immediately solves the old problem of the
objectivity of ethics.
• There are, however, serious problems with the
theory.
• Atheists would not accept it, because they do not
believe that God exists.
The Divine Command Theory
• But there are difficulties even for believers.

A. An action is right because God commands it.

B. God commands an action because it is right.
•Statement A implies that ………………
•Statement B implies that ………………
Right conduct is right because God commands it.
This idea encounters several difficulties.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious.
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
commands arbitrary.
3. This conception of morality provides the
wrong reasons for moral principles.
God commands right conduct because it is right.
• In taking this, we abandon the theological
conception of right and wrong.
• When we say that God commands us to be
truthful because truthfulness is right, we
acknowledge a standard that is independent of
God’s will.
• The rightness exists prior to God’s command and
is the reason for the command.
 Skepticism in Ethics
Ethical Egoism and Cultural Relativism
Ethical Egoism
Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?
• Every day, around 22,000 children under the age
of 5 die, almost always from preventable causes.
• Why do we let people starve when we could
save them?
•We have a duty to help the starving
because………………….

•We have no duty to help the starving

because………………….
Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?
• We have duties to others simply because they are
people who could be helped or harmed by what we
do.
• If a certain action would benefit (or harm) other
people, then that is a reason why we should (or
should not) perform that action.
• The commonsense assumption is that other people’s
interests count, from a moral point of view.
Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?
• Some people believe that we have no duties to
others.
• This view is known as Ethical Egoism.
• Each person ought to pursue his or her own self-
interest exclusively.
• This is the morality of selfishness. It holds that our
only duty is to do what is best for ourselves. Other
people matter only insofar as they can benefit us.
Psychological Egoism vs.
Ethical Egoism
• Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought to
pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively.
• Psychological Egoism, by contrast, asserts that
each person does in fact pursue his or her own
self- interest exclusively.
Psychological Egoism vs.
Ethical Egoism
• Psychological Egoism makes a claim about
human nature, or about the way things are;
• Ethical Egoism makes a claim about morality, or
about the way things should be.
Psychological Egoism
• Is Altruism Possible? Acts of Altruism are remarkable
deeds, but should they be taken at face value?
• According to Psychological Egoism, we may believe
ourselves to be noble and self-sacrificing, but that is
only an illusion. In reality, we care only for ourselves.
Two arguments are often given for
Psychological Egoism.
• We Always Do What We Want to Do.
• “Every act you have ever performed since the day you were born was
performed because you wanted something.”
• We Always Do What Makes Us Feel Good.
• The second argument for Psychological Egoism appeals to the fact that so-
called altruistic actions produce a sense of self - satisfaction in the person
who performs them.
• Psychological Egoism is not a credible theory.
Moral theorizing need not be a naïve endeavor,
based on an unrealistic view of human nature.
A. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism
• Ethical Egoism, again, is the doctrine that each person
ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
exclusively.
• Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of
self- interest accounts for all of one’s obligations.
A.1. The Argument That Altruism Is Self-
Defeating.
• We understand the desires and needs of other people
only imperfectly, and we are not well situated to
pursue them.
• The policy of “looking out for others” is an offensive
intrusion into other people’s privacy.
• Making other people the object of one’s “charity” is
degrading to them; it robs them of their dignity and
self- respect.
A.2. Ayn Rand’s Argument
• Ayn Rand regarded the “ethics of altruism” as a
totally destructive idea - leads to a denial of the
value of the individual.
• It says to a person: Your life is merely something
to be sacrificed.
• Ethical Egoism is the only ethic that takes seriously the reality of
the individual person.
• (1) Each person has only one life to live. If we value the individual,
then we must agree that this life is of supreme importance. After
all, it is all one has, and all one is.
• (2) The ethics of altruism regards the life of the individual as
something that may be sacrificed for the good of others. Therefore,
the ethics of altruism does not take seriously the value of the
individual.
• (3) Ethical Egoism, which allows each person to view his or her own
life as being of ultimate value, does take the individual seriously—it
is, in fact, the only philosophy that does.
• (4) Thus, Ethical Egoism is the philosophy that we ought to accept.
A.3. Ethical Egoism as Compatible with
Commonsense Morality
• Ordinary morality consists in obeying certain rules. We
must speak the truth, keep our promises, avoid
harming others, and so on.
• Ethical Egoists would say that all these duties are
ultimately derived from the one fundamental principle
of self-interest.
• The Golden Rule: We should “do unto others” because
if we do, others will be more likely to “do unto us.”
B. Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism
B.1. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Endorses
Wickedness.
• Suppose that someone could actually benefit by
doing such things. Wouldn’t Ethical Egoism have to
approve of such actions?
B.2. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is
Logically Inconsistent.
• The Theory leads to contradictions. If this is
true, then Ethical Egoism is indeed mistaken,
for no theory can be true if it contradicts
itself.
B.3. The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is
Unacceptably Arbitrary.
• Ethical Egoism is a moral theory of the same type like
racism.
• It advocates dividing the world into two categories of
people— ourselves and everyone else—and it urges
us to regard the interests of those in the first group as
more important than the interests of those in the
second group.
 The Challenge of
Cultural Relativism
Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes
• The Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers.
• The Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the
funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose
of the dead.
• The Eskimos often had more than one wife, and they
would share their wives with guests, lending them
out for the night as a sign of hospitality.
Cultural Relativism

•Main Idea: “Different cultures have different

moral codes. Therefore, there are no
universal moral truths, the customs of
different societies are all that exist.
Basic principle
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. 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.
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.
The Cultural Differences Argument
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in
morality.

Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and

opinions vary from culture to culture.
(1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Filipinos
believe infanticide is immoral.
(2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to
culture.

(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor
objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from
culture to culture.
What Follows from Cultural Relativism
1. We could no longer say that the customs of
other societies are morally inferior to our own.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our
own society.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
What We Can Learn from Cultural Relativism
• First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about
the danger of assuming that all of our practices are
based on some absolute rational standard.
• The second lesson has to do with keeping an open
mind.
• Many of the practices and attitudes we find natural
are really only cultural products.
Moral Reasoning in
Ethical Issues
Week 2 | Topic 2A
 Quick Review of the Previous Lesson
• Divine Command Theory

A. An action is right because God commands it.

B. God commands an action because it is right.
Jodie and Mary
• In August 2000, a young woman from Gozo, an island
south of Italy, discovered that she was carrying
conjoined twins.
• Knowing that the health-care facilities on Gozo were
inadequate to deal with such a birth, she and her
husband went to St. Mary’s Hospital in Manchester,
England.
• The infants, known as Mary and Jodie, were joined at
the lower abdomen. Their spines were fused, and they
had one heart and one pair of lungs between them.
Jodie, the stronger one, was providing blood for her
sister.
• But the outlook for Mary and Jodie were grim.
• The doctors said that without intervention the
girls would die within six months. The only
hope was an operation to separate them. This
would save Jodie, but Mary would die
immediately.
• Would it be right or wrong to separate the
twins?
Second Example: Baby Theresa
• Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an infant known to the
public as “Baby Theresa,” was born in Florida in 1992.
• Baby Theresa had anencephaly, one of the worst
genetic disorders.
• Anencephalic infants are sometimes referred to as
“babies without brains,” but that is not quite accurate.
• Important parts of the brain—the cerebrum and
cerebellum—are missing, as is the top of the skull.
• The brain stem, however, is still there, and so the baby
can still breathe and possess a heartbeat.
• Baby Theresa’s parents made an unusual
request.
• Knowing that their baby would die soon and
could never be conscious, Theresa’s parents
volunteered her organs for immediate
transplant.
• Were the parents right or wrong to volunteer
their baby’s organs for transplant? What can
be said to justify the parents’ request or to
justify opposing their request?
• In the case of baby Theresa, the right
thing to do is ………………………….
because …………………………
 Reason and Impartiality
• Moral judgments must be backed by good
reasons; and second, morality requires the
impartial consideration of each individual’s
interests.
 Moral Reasoning
• 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.
• The first thing is to get one’s facts straight. The
facts exist independently of our wishes, and
responsible moral thinking begins when we try to
see things as they are.
• Next, we can bring moral principles into play.
o We should not “use” people.
o We should not kill one person to save another.
o We should do what will benefit the people affected by
our actions.
o Every life is sacred.
The Requirement of Impartiality
• Almost every important moral theory
includes the idea of impartiality.
• This is the idea that each individual’s
interests are equally important; no one
should get special treatment.
• Impartiality requires that we not treat the
members of particular groups as inferior,
and thus it condemns forms of
discrimination like sexism and racism.
• The Minimum Conception of Morality
– We may now state the minimum conception:
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide
one’s conduct by reason—that is, to do what
there are the best reasons for doing—while giving
equal weight to the interests of each individual
affected by one’s decision.
 The conscientious moral agent is
someone :
• who is concerned impartially with the interests of
everyone affected by what he or she does;
• who carefully sifts facts and examines their
implications;
• who accepts principles of conduct only after
scrutinizing them to make sure they are justified;
• who is willing to “listen to reason” even when it
means revising prior convictions; and
• who is willing to act on the results of this
deliberation.