According to an
argument by Russ Shafer-Landau, the moral outlook of someone like
Hitler is “just as plausible” as the moral outlook of a Nobel
Peace laureate like Nelson Mandela-- if you subscribe to the view of
ethical subjectivism (Shafer-Landau, 294). Ethical subjectivism is
one of two branches of ethical relativism, which holds that moral
standards are relative to an individual's or a society's own
principles (290). Shafer-Landau breaks down the reasoning of ethical
subjectivists into two simple parts: if a person approves of the act,
it is morally acceptable; or if a person's own principles allow the
act, then it is morally acceptable (291). On the other side of this,
the act is wrong if the person disapproves, or if the person's own
principles in which they stand forbid the act (291).
Let's return to the
provocative example that opened this post. An ethical subjectivist
(however daring) may argue that, since Hitler's own principles
allowed him to proceed with the events of the Holocaust, or simply
because he himself approved of the act, then the killing of the Jews
was a morally acceptable action. Perhaps surprisingly, subjectivists
can also grant validity to any person's moral beliefs that oppose the
aforementioned one. This is because, as Shafer-Landau points out,
subjectivism “is a doctrine of moral equivalence”, so one
person's moral view is no better than another's (293).
As a person that once wholeheartedly subscribed to the notion that morality came from an individual's own unique beliefs, I was somewhat dazed by Shafer-Landau's simple statement regarding Hitler's morality and a Nobel Peace laureate's. Essentially, if I believed that these moral codes were derived from our individual selves, I would subsequently believe that there would be no way of saying that one person's morality was any better than another's. For me, this one argument against subjectivism completely derailed that line of thinking for me. This is because I actually do believe that some moral codes are “superior” to others, but I had just never fully thought this deeply about my beliefs on the topic before. Somehow I had not considered that this had to be true if I was to believe what I had believed. I was a confused ethical subjectivist that subsequently also believed in this major contradiction tied with the principles (even though I had not fully known it at the time).
I am proud of myself
though, in that I have remained open to fresh ideas that have
challenged my own principles, and have remained willing to (as
Shafer-Landau puts it) “follow the arguments where they lead”
(4).
Works Cited:
Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Like T’Kia, I also found Shafer-Landau’s argumentation of ethical relativism interesting. What caught my attention in particular was the idea that ethical relativism is just a theory and while Shafer-Landau provides evidence for an argument in favor of ethical relativism, he does not support the a thesis identifying the truth of ethical relativism, he merely states a sound argument for the theory. He also presents the opposing theory and argues its validity as well.
ReplyDeleteT’Kia’s post also reminded of an article I read recently for my Humanitarian Intervention class. In his essay Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code, John Arthur argues that all humans are obligated to prevent evil (797) and should create a level playing field by using the “equity principle”. According to Arthur, the equity principle states that no human life is more important than another human life. To demonstrate this principle, he uses an example comparing the equal importance of the lives of Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler. (797-798). I can then use what I’ve learned from Shafer-Landau to speculate that under ethical subjectivism, both Hitler’s views of morality would also have been equally as plausible as King’s.
Another ethical example we discussed in my Humanitarian Intervention class was the question of whether you are morally obligated to save a drowning child if you happened to randomly walk by and witness the incident. (This would be assuming you know how to swim, the water is only knee high, and it’s the middle of summer- meaning there are very few costs to you). Looking at this dilemma from the standpoint of subjectivism, I believe that Shafer-Landau would argue that it would matter what your personal moral beliefs were to determine whether you feel you are obligated to save the child. But on the other hand, if you looked at this dilemma through the lens of cultural relativism, you could argue that you would in fact be obligated morally to save the child because society as a whole believes that that would be the right thing to do.
Additional work used:
DeleteArthur, John. "Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteT'Kia did a really good job in this post! I like the way she started her post with a hook that presents an outrageous point of view. This certainly captured my attention and made me want to keep on reading.
DeleteBesides, T'Kia's post also reminds me of how I have possessed a contradictory opinion on the status of ethics. Having experienced different cultures around the world and witnessed many incidents of religious conflicts, I understand the importance of tolerance to ensure social peace and harmony. I respected the differences between cultures so deeply that I accepted cultural relativism as the answer to the status of ethic. However, after reading the chapter on Ethical Relativism in the book, I came to realize cultural relativism rejects my belief that tolerance should be valued and practiced by everyone. Shafer-Landau claims on page 294 that "(cultural relativism) is a threat to tolerance". He argues that cultural relativism considers no moral view better than the other. Thus, those who are intolerant will have a moral ground as good as that of those who are tolerant, of which I cannot agree less.
Overall, I think T'Kia has done a good job summarizing a major argument in the chapter and relating the reading with her personal experience.