Cultural Moral Relativism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- "Is morality different for different cultures?" There are two different questions we might have in mind here.
First, we might mean: "Do people's beliefs about morality differ across cultures?" This question is easy. Yes, different cultures have different moral beliefs. We can call this view "Descriptive Relativism."
Second we might mean: "Does morality itself (i.e. the moral truth) differ across cultures?" This is harder. According to the view "Cultural Relativism" (which is a version of "Moral Relativism"), the answer is "yes." Morality is nothing more than whatever your culture approves or disapproves of.
But is cultural relativism true? Perhaps. However, it's important that we not make a mistake in our reasoning. The fact that cultures disagree about morality does not prove that morality isn't real or objective. That is, we shouldn't conclude that "cultural relativism" is true simply because "descriptive relativism" is true.*
*SOURCES:
The examples in the video (infanticide and killing cows) and the argument in the section "Is cultural relativism true?" which points out that descriptive relativism does not entail cultural relativism, are both drawn from chapter 2 ("the Challenge of Cultural Relativism") of James Rachels' textbook "The Elements of Moral Philosophy."
Further reading:
For more information on various forms of moral relativism (including cultural relativism) check out:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on "Moral Relativism":
(plato.stanford...)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Moral Relativism": (iep.utm.edu/mo...)
Media Sources:
Illustrations: www.freepik.com (and macrovector)
Tea Leaves Photo: "he reads tea leaves" by Peter-Ashley is licensed with CC BY 2.0
Other Photos & Video Clips: www.pexels.com
Music: www.purple-pla...
Sound Effects: www.zapsplat.com
Love it! Haven't come across that distinction before but makes perfect sense. I wonder if there's a third point in the middle of these...I guess I'm just spitballing here but what would an objective morality look like? Like for cultural moral relativism to be wrong. Would it exist regardless of humanity? So I guess I would stand between these two and maintain that morality is a subjective experience and yet one that is shared universally. Morality is a core aspect of human culture and maybe you could broaden that for all of life (the air that is life to the monkey is death to the fish). So the experience of morality like the role it plays in culture and the subjective affective experience of good bad right wrong etc is a common experience even if the content is different. Maybe that's what you meant by objective morality again it's a new distinction to me so I'm just spitballing here. Loved the video very thought provoking!
"What would an objective morality look like? Like for cultural moral relativism to be wrong. Would it exist regardless of humanity?" I think there are a few different ways it might go. For example, some philosophers argue that morality is "socially constructed" yet still objective (i.e. the same moral principles apply to all people in the same way). This would mean that without humanity there would be no morality, but morality would not depend on any particular cultural belief or practice. However, others argue that morality is objective and moral truths are mind-independent. For example, perhaps happiness/pleasure is intrinsically good and pain is intrinsically bad--regardless of what we believe about it. And perhaps morality is about maximizing happiness. That could be a case where morality would be objective and it would not depend on humanity and not be socially constructed.
@@ThinkingAboutStuff ,If the moral standards of good & bad depend on each culture, then there is a culture that considers corruption to be good & a culture that considers corruption to be bad. The question is, is there a culture that considers corruption both in the past and in the present?
If the moral standards of good & bad depend on each culture, then there is a culture that considers corruption to be good & a culture that considers corruption to be bad. The question is, is there a culture that considers corruption both in the past and in the present?
Brilliantly explained!
Thinking about a good stuff to correct the distorted mind.
nice video!
Weak sauce. Should have just nipped the problem in the bud and disproved moral relativism. We don't need more nutjobs in the streets who buy into it. I get you're playing it safe by just being descriptive, but you can do better. It's like making a youtube video merely describing that a position called "flat eatherism" exists, without going out of your way to tell the viewer why it is laughable. So until then? Dislike from me.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not necessarily trying to play it safe, though. My goal is not to persuade anyone. I'm just trying to offer concise videos explaining particular views or arguments without adding much commentary. I use these as a teaching tool in my philosophy classes and then open it up for critical discussion where we can evaluate the ideas. (And although I agree that cultural relativism is false, I don't it's irrational in the same way that flat-eartherism is.)
@@ThinkingAboutStuff What's the point of being so overly neutral? Who exactly benefits? Explain to me the type of person who would benefit from exactly this video.
As I see it, anyone who is interested in philosophy, will spot the contradictions in cultural relativism instantly, and just be annoyed, as I was, that you neglect to mention them. Or that you didn't at least accurately portray the view as outdated, much like Plato's theory of forms or whatever other ancient idea you want to highlight.
If someone is new to philosophy, or happens to have never thought about cultural relativism much, they might watch the video and think to themselves "Oh, that sounds great and empathetic, I'll base my own morality on this!" and then they'll go on to make immoral decisions.
But even if they're not convinced in that fashion, and are actually skeptical of the idea, because they're new to philosophy, it might take them days or weeks to figure out exactly what's wrong with it. Whereas if you just freaking told them, they wouldn't have wasted their time thinking it had merit.
And it's not like it would take you very long either. You don't need to get into a long argument proving there is indeed an objective morality. All you have to do is show how it's internally inconsistent / not a moral system to begin with, like so:
"Morality itself cannot be nothing more than cultural approval / disapproval, because this would rob us of the ability to make moral judgements to begin with. Furthermore, it even fails at its own goal of not being biased towards a particular culture.
Take a neutral cultural relativist observer, C, who wants to make a moral judgement about persons A and B. In A's culture, stealing is wrong, and in B's culture, it is not. B attempts to steal something from A, who then defends themselves. Is B acting immorally towards A?
A cultural relativist might answer "no", because B is merely acting in accordance with their own culture. Or they might answer "yes" because they are acting contrary to A's culture. Either way they answer the question will show a bias towards one culture over another. Their only option is to admit they have no answer, proving that cultural relativism does not help us make moral judgements"
@@ThinkingAboutStuff , If the moral standards of good & bad depend on each culture, then there is a culture that considers corruption to be good & a culture that considers corruption to be bad. The question is, is there a culture that considers corruption both in the past and in the present?
@@muhammadfarhan4755
Do you mean a culture that holds two contradictory ideas simultaneously; or a culture that can hold a certain belief in the present while realising that it previously held a diametrically opposite view in the not so distant past (and therefore at least has an awareness that change happens).