Can ethics be objective? Russ Shafer-Landau analyzes this question, in The Fundamental Of Ethics, by critiquing the arguments of ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is divided into two subtypes; cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. The cultural relativists argue that correct moral standards are decided by each culture or society (291). In contrast, ethical subjectivists claim that each individual decides which moral standards are correct (291). Landau tests each claim made by these theories through a series of logical tests. Although I will focus only on cultural relativism, the critiques of both groups' claims illustrate that their skepticism towards ethical objectivity is not plausible.
Shafer-Landau's primary critique against cultural relativism is the contradiction faced with subcultures. Since, cultural relativists argue that society decides which moral standards are correct, any individual that opposes the societal norm is morally incorrect under this assumption. Landau asserts that many individuals can live in multiple societies simultaneously (301). He uses case of Wisconsin vs. Yoder to illustrate this contradiction (300). I agree that cultural relativism has a faulty argument against ethical objectivity since this group does not allow for individuals to exist in multiple societies. Such an individual is both morally correct and incorrect at the same time. This is where the contradiction surfaces and cultural relativists are not able to fully adjust their claim to reverse this result.
I also find it difficult for cultural relativism to stand firm in American society. In part, many cultures and subgroups are prevalent in the U.S. For example, Roe vs. Wade allows for women to have abortion. If cultural relativists examine an American catholic, they face the same contradiction that Landau describes in his book. This individual would be morally correct and incorrect. He would essentially have to choose between U.S. law or Catholic standards which isn't possible since every society's moral code is equivalent with another (301). Many societies are a "melting pot" of cultures and most people belong to more than one. I believe that cultural relativism is not a realistic view to hold towards most societies in today's world.
I think Leslie did a good job at explaining the author's argument and especially the contradiction paragraph for cultural relativism.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the sections on cultural relativism, I found that its biggest downfall was that because cultural relativism claims that correct moral standards come from the accepted norms of a society, belief in this theory means that there is no challenging to society's norms. Furthermore, a person's actions become justified if they fall under that society's norm. To me, the example the author used about a society's support for honor killings was the strongest evidence to oppose this theory (292). This is because to our society, it might seem that cultural relativism is a viable theory, but when you see the theory's implications on a different society, the theory's strong assertions become very difficult to support.
I think Leslie did a great job of briefly explaing Shafer-Landau's argument against cultural relativism and the contradition it faces.
ReplyDeleteI aslo agree with Leslie's line of thinking when she suggests that it's difficult for cultural relativism to have a firm place in American Society. America is like a melting pot in a sense. By melting pot I mean that within America itself there is so many different ethinicities, cultures, and religious beliefs all mixed toghether in one that it makes it hard to have society doctrine moral principles for the people to live by.