Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

Test 6- CER, PE, EE, SUBJECTIVISM, EGOISM

Terms in this set (18)

CER and non-CER (moral objectivism) differ, not as ethical theories or as ethical judgments, but as contrary accounts of the nature of ethics
...
The non-CER position
A. Differences in ethical beliefs (about the good and right) across cultures comprise disagreements
B. A culture's ethical beliefs are subject to error; they can be either true or false
C. What the majority of a culture thinks is morally good/right is not the same as what it really morally/good or right
D. There are universally applicable objective ethical standards and values even if some or all people are ignorant of them
The CER position
A. differences in values and norms across cultures are mere differences in (non-rational) customs or habits, not disagreements of belief

B. Ethical "beliefs" are neither true nor false; they are not subject to error

C. The majority of a culture's thinking that x is good/right is the same as x's really being good/right

D. There are no universally/applicable, objective ethical standards and values
The cultural differences argument (for CER)
Premise 1: Cultures often differ in their beliefs about what is good and right

Premise 2: If different cultures differ in their beliefs about some topic x, then topic x is relative to culture

Conclusion: Values and norms are relative to culture
The cultural influence argument (for CER)
Premise 1: One's ethical beliefs are influenced by one's culture

Premise 2: If one's beliefs are influenced by one's culture, then topic x is relative to culture

Conclusion: Thus values and norms are relative to culture
The tolerance argument (for CER)
Premise 1: Only CER is tolerant of other cultures' ethical beliefs and practices; non-CER is necessarily intolerant (close-minded)

Premise 2: We/all ought to be tolerant of other cultures' ethical beliefs and practices

Conclusion: We/all ought to be cultural ethical relativists
Rachel's arguments against CER
A. CER is false since it is possible for a cultural practice to be wrong, or a culture's ethical beliefs to be mistaken

B. CER is false since there van be either moral progress or regress within a culture

C. CER is false since it is possible to rationally evaluate the practices and moral beliefs of one another or one's own culture
The position of ES
A. Values and standards are entirely subjective. That is,

1. Values and norms are nothing but the irrational tastes of a subject;

2. What seems good/bad or right/wrong to a subject really is so (error isn't possible)

3. To say that x is good or bad means nothing but I like or dislike x; to say that y is right or wrong means nothing but I approve or disapprove of y

B. Thus, ethical utterances are not real judgments that have "descriptive content" or "cognitive meaning." That is, ethical utterances are
1. Not descriptive
2. Neither true or false
3. Without objective criteria
4. Not justifiable
5. Not subject to disagreement
Arguments for ES that appeal to the use of ethical utterances
A. Premise 1: Ethical utterances such as "Murder is evil" or "Marriage is good" are used strictly to either
1. (Hume) Describe subjective, irrational sentiments
2. (Ayer) Express subjective, irrational sentiments;
and/or
3. (Stevenson) Prescribe a course of action

B. Premise 2: If an utterance is used in any such way then it doesn't have any descriptive content (cognitive meaning)

C. Conclusion: Thus ethical utterances lack any descriptive content
Arguments for why values and standards are not objective properties
A. Hume's overall case in favor of ethical subjectivism

1. All objective judgments concern either "relations of ideas" (necessary, a priori), or "matters of fact" (contingent)

2. Ethical pronouncements concern neither

3. Thus ethical pronouncements are not objective judgments
Hume's first argument in favor of ethical subjectivism
1. Premise 1: If a statement is about a relation of ideas, then it holds true without exception

2. Premise 2: But ethical utterances such as "incest is evil" do not hold true without exception (incest is not evil among animals)

3. Conclusion: Thus ethical utterances aren't statements about relations of ideas (so that there are no objective criteria for our ethical terms)
Hume's second argument in favor of ethical subjectivism
1. Premise 1: A statement of the form "x is f" is about a matter of fact only is the property of Fness is a "real existence" in the object of x

2. Premise 2: But goodness/badness, or rightness/wrongness, cannot be found in the objects or actions said to be so

3. Conclusion: Thus, ethical utterances are not statements about matters of fact (so that one cannot give and evaluate reasons for whether actions are good/bad or right/wrong)
Psychological Egoism as a completely general, descriptive doctrine about human nature
A. Everyone is selfish

B. What each person desires or values for its own sake

C. What each person chooses to do
Rebuttals to apparent counterexamples of Psychological Egoism
1. "It's really selfish because one is simply doing what one wants to do"

2. "It's really selfish because one is only doing it in order to feel satisfies or in order to avoid feeling guilty"
Ethical Egoism as a normative/prescriptive doctrine about how we ought to live and act
A. What one ought to desire and what is of intrinsic worth

B. What one ought to choose to do and the criteria of moral rectitude
An approximation of Hobbes' arguments for Ethical Egoism
A. What is good is nothing but what ones desires (ethical subjectivism)

B. The only thing that one desires for its own sake is one's own pleasure, power, glory and survival (psychological egoism)

C. Thus what is good for its own sake is just one's own pleasure, power, glory and survival (psychological egoism)

D. What is right is nothing but what is the best means to an end that one desires

E. Thus what is right is whatever maximizes one's own (overall) pleasure, power, glory and survival (whether or not it harms others) and has an absolute right to all
Ayn Rad's arguments for Ethical Egoism
A. Everyone lives according to an ethic (a view of the good and right). One must choose to live according to either an egoistic or an altruistic ethic. A life lived according to an altruistic ethic is worthless and miserable (since it requires one to sacrifice everything for the sake of others and to not pursue any individual good). Thus one ought to live according to an egoistic ethic

B. Altruism (invariably) harms the recipient since (1) it destroys ambition and self-respect and breeds dependence, sloth and poverty, and (2) no one but the individual knows what is in that individual's best interests and is suited to pursue that individual's best interests
Arguments against Ethical Egoism
A. Ethical Egoism contradicts our ordinary moral values and standards. Two responses:

1. Hobbes: It in fact turns out to be in one's selfish best interests to adhere to the usual standards of right and wrong

2. Nietzsche: Ordinary values and standards but reflect an inferior "slave morality" that is fearful and resentful of real power ad that seeks power through leveling and destruction

B. Rachel's argument for why Ethical Egoism is groundless: The only thing that justifies the preferential valuation and treatment of x over y is the fact that x has superior characteristics to y; but no one individual is superior to all others in all good characteristics and abilities

C. Locke's argument that persons' are deserving of equal rights (to life, liberty, private property) insofar as they are of equal (intrinsic and unconditional) worth, and that persons are equal worth insofar as they are capable of rational self-governance (regarding their means and ends) of moral agency.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...