Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)

From: Abakus (abakus_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:01:43 GMT

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0K-dnbye05aDq5jcRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> (1) Different cultures have different moral codes.

Certainly

> (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong
are
> only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

Of course

> It is not sound.

Isnt it? This sounds intriguing. Let's read on

>The trouble is that the conclusion does not really follow from
> the premise-that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still
might be
> false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies. people
> believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The
> conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that
this
> sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.

What "really is the case"? Interesting. What is really the case?

> --------------------------------
>
> Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first
blush it
> seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be
evaluated by
> subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyze Cultural
Relativism we
> find that it is not so plausible as it first appears to be.

Too many words, too little content. Can we cut to the chase?

> ...at the heart of Cultural Relativism there is a certain form of
argument. The
> strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the
> differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of
> morality. Thus we are invited to accept this reasoning:
>
> (1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callatians
> believed it was right to eat the dead.
>
> (2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor
objectively
> wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to
culture.

This is exactly the same thing that was said at the beginning. Do we need to
say everything twice?

> Or, alternatively:
>
> (1) The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans
believe
> infanticide is immoral.
>
> (2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong.
> It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Yes, yes, we get the point.

> Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are
both
> special cases of a more general argument, which says:
>
> (1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
>
> (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong
are
> only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

Yes, this is the same paragraph we saw at the top. How many times do you
have to repeat the same thing?

> We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is
very
> persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it a sound argument?

Well, are you going to make your bloody point or what?

> It is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not really follow
from
> the premise-that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still
might be
> false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies. people
> believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. The
> conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that
this
> sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.

And we get the same fucking paragraph all over again. Are we going to get
some sort of reasoning anytime this century?

> Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Greeks
believed it
> was wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right. Does it
follow,
> from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth
in the
> matter? No, it does not follow; for it could be that the practice was
objectively
> right (or wrong) and that one or the other of them was simply mistaken.

"Objectively right". Somebody is trying to introduce a sneaky concept
without defining what it means. Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

> To make the point clearer, consider a very different matter. In some
societies,
> people believe the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own,
people
> believe the earth is (roughly) spherical. Does it follow, from the mere
fact that
> they disagree, that there is no "objective truth" in geography?

Oh my god, now we get a statement of fact as an example for an argument
about statements of value! Is this supposed to be the argument we have been
promised? How much sillier can this get?

>Of course not; we
> would never draw such a conclusion because we realize that, in their
beliefs
> about the world, the members of some societies might simply be wrong.
There is no
> reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it.
Similarly,
> there is no reason to think that if there is moral truth everyone must
know it.

If there is a "moral truth"? What on earth would a moral truth look like?

> The fundamental mistake in the Cultural Differences Argument is that it
attempts
> to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the
mere fact
> that people disagree about it.

No, no , no, no. Who can be so incredibly moronic to really state that
imbecility? And who can be so stupid as to paste it?
The fact that people disagree is a *consequence* of the fact taht there is
no moral absolutes. Where are the moral absolutes that people could use as
standards and therefore we could find out who is right and who is wrong?
There arent any. That is why the comparison with the believers in a flat
earth is either completely idiotic or sneakily dishonest.

> It is important to understand the nature of the point that is being made
here. We
> are not saying (not yet, anyway) that the conclusion of the argument is
false.
> Insofar as anything being said here is concerned, it is still an open
question
> whether the conclusion is true. We are making a purely logical point and
saying
> that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This is important,
because
> in order to determine whether the conclusion is true, we need arguments in
its
> support. Cultural Relativism proposes this argument, but unfortunately the
> argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves nothing.

You have presented a false image of what cultural relativism is, have built
a crappy strawman, and then produced a fallacious and stupid
pseudo-argument.

regards
Abakus

Quantcast