Does Shafer-Landau Subjectively Support Moral Objectivity?

            In Chapter 21 of The Fundamentals of Ethics, author Russ Shafer-Landau describes the top ten arguments against moral objectivity. This chapter is structured similarly to the other chapters, except for the fact that an author bias is prominent for the first time. Back in Chapter 20, Shafer-Landau foreshadowed his personal ethical stance in his conclusion when he does not completely rule out the nihilism point of view, “Most of us (especially we textbook authors!) hope this isn’t so.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 318)

In this conclusion, Shafer-Landau states that, “Our discussion of these ten arguments has not revealed a single one that confirms the existence of objective moral values.” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 337) However, in this chapter the author does a great job of disproving the arguments against objectivism. At the beginning of this section, Shafer-Landau easily discredits the more popular arguments against objectivism. Nevertheless, the arguments against objectivism escalate in complexity as the chapter progresses. In this post, I will be discussing Shafer-Landau’s successful disproval of the moral skeptic argument that moral motivation undermines moral objectivity and how this example reflects his ethical stance.

Can you reject moral objectivism based off of personal opinions?

Are people entitled to believe whatever they would like to?  Are all of their opinions equally plausible? Russ Shafer-Landau explores ethical objectivity in his book The Fundamentals of Ethics.  I believe that "Equal Rights Imply Equal Plausibility" was one of the stronger arguments from the chapter, Ten Arguments Against Moral Objectivity. The argument given in the section begins by stating that, “If everyone has an equal right to an opinion, then all opinions are equally plausible." (Shafer-Landau 2012, 323)  One can see that this is most likely the way that most people in our society were raised; constantly being reminded by your parents that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that everyone is right when they give their opinions.  For that reason it would make the first claim seem plausible without reading into it any further.  

Nihilism, Objectivism, Relativism...Which Way Are You Leaning?

In class today, we left off at the start of a very interesting discussion. After reading the arguments for and against each philosophical view, we were asked where we saw our own views falling into place. There didn't seem to be any one theory that had overwhelming support behind it, nor one theory in which the entire class had completely dismissed.

At the start of this class, I was more of a subjectivist. For me, morality was all relative and no one person's moral principles could be superior to another's. In this belief I was grounded-- that is-- until we studied Shafer-Landau's chapter on "Ethical Relativism". Unable to refute the arguments raised by the author to my views, I turned to outside literature, but still was unable to come up with anything that could hold up against these objections. Now, however, I feel that my personal views may lie closer to those posed within nilhilism's error theory. The fact-value distinction in which Shafer-Landau notes drew me into nihilism (306). Also, since I agree that moral claims are "truth apt" yet all false because of the nonexistence of moral truths, error theory was more appealing than expressivism.

How Far Have we Really Come: How to address the issues of race in America

"Don't let your past come back to haunt you". That saying has stuck in my head since the first time I heard it at the age of 10. I always believed that if we reflected on our past to much it would prevent us from moving on to what our future has in store for us. Yesterday, however, my view has somewhat changed when it comes to that saying. This is due to Dr. Sundiata K. Cha-Jua. I had the fortunate pleasure of attending Dr. Cha-Jua's lecture yesterday, "Resurrecting Ghosts of the Past: Building Black Studies on its Radical Intellectual Tradition". Dr. Cha-Jua's lecture focused on the problems that exist for African Americans in the American society and how black studies in the collegiate curriculum can fix this. Before I go into more details though, let me first give a brief background of Dr. Sundiata K. Cha-Jua.

A Cultural Divide

In 2006 a woman named Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was sentenced to death. Although the death penalty is a highly contested subjected this is not what I am focusing on instead the argument here is the method of the death penalty in this case it takes place in Iran where a woman was convicted of adultery and involvement in the murder of her husband. This conviction carries the sentence of death by stoning, which is highly contested worldwide.

This is a great example of cultural relativism as seen in Shafer-Landau’s Fundamentals of Ethics because in Iranian culture this is an acceptable way to carry out the execution because of how Islamic law dictates it. But in a different cultural setting, anywhere that is not an Islamic state, would see this as inhumane and terrible way to carry out the death sentence.

Source-

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/22/iran.stoning.sentence/index.html

Better World and Moral Progress Synonymous?

Is it a fair observation when Russ Shafer-Landau describes, in The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd edition, how societal, moral progress appears to have existed in the United Sates following a reduction in racist and sexist attitudes? (295).  I like to think so.  Contrarily, ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists reject that speculation.  Ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists make up the two subdivisions of the broader term: ethical relativism (290).  Shafer-Landau explains how ethical relativists adopt the viewpoint that some moral claims are true; however, morality is a human construct and would cease to exist if humanity became extinct (291).  Furthermore, ethical subjectivists assume the idea that morality is constructed by an individual’s commitments and ideals, while cultural relativists believe morality is ultimately determined by a society’s guiding principles.  Moving on, Shafer-Landau enlightens us by providing several implications both parties face when broken down and analyzed.  One in particular, the idea of moral progress, caught my attention.  According to both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists, all acknowledged guidelines, whether on an individual or societal level, are morally correct.  Next, Shafer-Landau introduces controversy by questioning the existence of moral progress if all assumed standards are ethically right (296).  Wouldn’t previously viewed moral progress such as the earlier example simply be a shift of ideals rather than ethical progression?  Without a definite standard, progress becomes immeasurable.

This seems like a very disheartening conclusion, in my opinion.  If we as societies and individuals are incapable of moral progress, what will the future behold? Putting aside my opinion that there exists an eternal, divine standard for ethical morality, Shafer-Landau’s arguments are sound and logically conclusive. Conversely, I do think his wording can manipulate his readers (which is a very important skill when writing a persuasive argument).  For starters, moral progress is discussed from a societal level in the previous example, in a context that suggests it is synonymous with the world becoming a better place.  If there is no standard to measure moral progress, does that necessarily mean that the world cannot become a better place? Theoretically, individuals and societies could experience moral change, without measured progress, and the world, as we know it, could become safer, more tolerant, cleaner, etc.  Although no progress has taken place, wouldn’t ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists like those improvements?  The so-called improvements may only be deemed good because ethical relativists like them, but, nevertheless, the world would become a better place even in the absence of moral progress.  My point is, although Shafer-Landau concluded for both ethical subjectivists and cultural relativists that moral progress is impossible, we cannot mistake this conclusion to portray a subliminal message disregarding the possibility of the world becoming a better place; or at least a safer, more tolerant environment.

Girls in Islamic Culture

Girls in Islamic Culture Should one culture intervene with another? In Russ Shafer-Landau’s The Fundamentals of Ethics, he talks about cultural relativism.He defines cultural relativism as “moral standards relative to a culture, or societies” (291).Different standards are determined by the society, who will have the final say in what is right and wrong in their culture (291).A good example of cultural relativism is a look at the Islamic world. In the different areas of the world, specifically the Islamic world, women are often forced to get circumcised, usually when they are teenagers.These girls are mutilated normally against their will.In 2005, the United States declared “that women from countries that allow circumcision are eligible for asylum in the United States” (Epstein).Cases are not only found in the Middle East or North Africa, they are found in Muslim communities all over the world to North America, Australia, and Europe.Muslims immigrants in the Unite

A Personal Look on Ethical Subjectivism

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).

Fact or Fiction: A Critique of Cultural Relativism

Fact or Fiction: A Critique of Cultural Relativism
By Lee Renshaw

Does an absolute truth exist in the world of ethics?  Harry Gensler attempts to express his view on this question and the question of the questionable implications of cultural relativism (CR).  While, in his essay, Gensler concedes that the idea of CR is a tempting one since it seems to cover the conflicts between different societies and allows for multicultural tolerance, he calls attention to its serious flaws (198).  He writes about four significant points in his critique, a main one of which is that the social norm is always correct in that given society.  However, how does one respond when his cultural norm is something believed by most of the rest of the world to be "bad", like racism?  It is an interesting theory in that it could make it possible to absolve many racists and criminals of guilt in any "bad" actions they have done.  If it is accepted as "good" in their respective societies, one cannot fault them ethically for their deeds.  

The Cohesion of Culture & Theory: Becca Stanek

Does cultural relativism equate to intercultural tolerance? In the eyes of “Ima Relativist,” the narrator of the counterpoint essay in Russ Shafer-Landau’s The Ethical Life, cultural relativism does just that: it facilitates understanding and mutual respect between vastly different cultures. Rather than adopting a staunchly black-and-white, “we’re right and you’re wrong” viewpoint, the theory accepts that morality is a social construction, thus shifting right and wrong to “different" (200). The elimination of objective right and wrong breeds tolerance, inhibits criticism and judgment, and builds a sense of solidarity amongst cultural majorities according to Ima (200).

Can Ethics Be Objective? Analysis of Ethical Relativism

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.

Analyzing Arguments in Defense of Eating Meat

How important is philosophy?  In his book The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau reflects on how to structure arguments and what makes them sound or logically reasonable.  During his introduction on pages 11-14, Landau breaks down the argument regarding if eating meat should be considered immoral.  He explains how the popular justification in which it is ok for humans to kill animals because animals kill each other isn’t a sound argument because the conclusion isn’t properly supported.  In order to have a sound argument, the premises need to be completely true and must logically guaranty the truth of the conclusion.  He outlines how animals and humans aren’t considered to be on the same moral playing field, which means they obey by different rules of the natural world (11).  Humans actually have ethics, while animals do not, and the false premise eliminates the validity of the argument.

Does one size fit all?

“They say, I say” argues that in order to make a compelling argument, it is best to first summarize or quote the opposition’s beliefs, then to move on to your own claims. This is because the author argues that in order to keep your audience’s attention, it’s important to explain early on to your audience what you are responding about. Although I agree with the author in that this approach is the most beneficial approach to writing an argumentative paper, I also believe that this approach should be reserved for more advanced writers.

How Just are Traditions?

In his The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau discusses morality through the fascinating and intangible, or well, less tangible science of philosophy. The introductory chapter briefly touches on the contents of the book, breaking it down into three sections: value theory, normative ethics, and metaethics. Throughout the introduction he continues to note skepticisms about morality and addresses common “moral” misconceptions like the existence of ethics from an atheist’s perspective, when there’s no God to enforce the rules. Shafer-Landau suggests (but doesn’t actually prove) that morality is inborn and that there is a moral absolute in ethics.

Can Laws be Gender Specific?

By reading through the introduction of The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau, I was able to make various outside of the classroom connections based off of his list of reasonable constraints that guide the way we live found on page 6.  Two of the constraints that seemed most relevant to what goes on in the world today were “Neither the law nor tradition is immune to moral criticism,” and “Equals ought the be treated equally.” (Shafer-Landau, 6)

            A relevant article that I found to deal with both was

The Morality of Laws Limiting Generic Drug Sales

           While some believe that there are not any general starting points for ethics due to human difference, Russ Shafer Landau argues in his book, “The Fundamentals of Ethics” that, “there are some reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live.”(6) One of these constraints applies to current events involving the limitation of generic drugs by name-brand companies. Landau’s argument that, “neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism,”(6) illustrates the current ethical debate of whether a law restricting generic drugs is morally correct.

Collin Henry's Reading Response:"The Role of Moral Theory" pg.14-15 in The Fundamental of Ethics by Russ Shafer Landau

Russ Shafer-Landau emphasizes to readers that the role of moral theory in philosophy is to extract deeper, more generalized theories. Finding these theories would allow us, as humans, to apply them as the moral standard in more cases. Shafer-Landau argues that this is not just a want for philosophers, but is actually a built in yearning for all humans. When faced with a moral dilemma, every person digs deeper into his or her thought process to extract a universal reasoning as to why they came up with their solution. We do not want to think completely through every decision we have to make; instead, we prefer to have a universal code that makes the decision black and white.

Reading Response: "They say, I say" pg. 20-22

The authors’ of They Say, I Say believe that when constructing an argument, orally or in writing, a person should first start with “what others are saying” and then respond to this with their own ideas. The authors suggest that when doing this, the person constructing an argument should summarize what the others say as soon as possible and remind the readers or listeners of it at strategic points as they go along. The authors argue that by constructing this style of argument you a person is giving their audience a quick preview of what they are arguing, and not just drowning the audience in details right away. This advice of the authors somewhat contradicts the common advice given to writers, which is the idea that writers should start with their own thesis or claim. The authors acknowledge this contradiction and respond to it in two ways: First

Welcome to Ethical Theory!

Welcome to Jen Everett's Ethical Theory class blog.  Only students in the class may post entries or comment on posts.  However, the blog is publicly available for reading.  So invite your friends to follow our conversation.  It's sure to be a thought-provoking semester.

We're going to use this space for several purposes throughout the semester: