The Normative from the
Descriptive?
DER NER
•NER does not follow automatically from DER, and the best
explanation argument for NER may not get off the ground.
But, as Rachels notes on p.21, this does not mean the
conclusion, NER, is shown to be false.
DEU NEU
•NEU does not follow automatically from DEU, but NEU is
not shown to be false.
•Rather these results show that DER and NEU are
compatible, and DEU and NER are also compatible.
Philosophical Questions About
Ethical Relativism/Absolutism
Do the established facts support DER?
Does DER support NER?
What are the implications of NER?
Implications of NER
1. Impossibility of correct cross-cultural
or cross-individual ethical judgments
2. Incoherence of „ethical progress‟
3. Undermining of the Principle of
Tolerance
We will see them in order.
1. Impossibility of cross-
cultural Judgments
A. The impossibility of ethical judgments
across different cultures
• The problem about judging individual
acts and agents from a different culture.
B. The impossibility of ethical comparisons of
different cultures (Rachels, 2.4.1 on p. 21)
• The problem about comparing two
cultures‟ ethical codes and practices
(slavery, anti-Semitism etc.).
A. Ethical judgments across
different cultures
Normative Ethical Relativists hold that there are NO
universally correct ethical standards and there are NO
practices that it would be correct to adopt universally.
Thus, you can correctly criticize an individual’s, say
Makoto’s, sexual or racial discrimination, promise-
breaking, unfair grading etc. only if the ethical
standards correct for his culture, say the
Japanese culture, condemn these actions.
A person living outside your culture does not have to
mind your ethical condemnations that apply ethical
standards correct only in your culture.
B. Ethical comparisons of different
cultures: E.g. Foot Binding
Foot binding in
China lasted from
the 10th Century
until 1911, when
it was outlawed.
At some points, a
majority of
Chinese women
had bound feet.
Ethical Relativism and
Foot Binding Culture
Normative ethical relativists say there is NO universally
correct ethical standard and there is NO practice
correct to adopt universally.
Therefore, they are forced to say the following: it is
groundless and incorrect to think that our ethical
practice (condemning foot binding) is superior to the
practice of foot binding in the 10-19 Century China.
According to NER, we can make no correct ethical
comparison of different cultures.
Thus Rachels says: “We could no longer say that the
customs of other societies are morally inferior to our
own.” (p. 21: So the above is the answer to Q2.) For
saying so is groundless and incorrect.
Implications of NER: 2. Incoherence of
„Ethical Progress‟ (Rachels, 2.4.3 on p. 22)
If culturally dominant judgments and practices,
including the ethical codes and practices, are
replaced, one culture dies and another arises.
If so, as slavery, the subjection of women, anti-
Semitism etc. are abolished, a new culture
arises.
Then, the judgments of ethical progress are
ethical comparisons of two cultures across time.
If we can make no correct ethical comparisons
of different cultures, then we cannot correctly
judge one culture to have improved or
progressed over time.
Implications of NER: 3.
Undermining of the Principle of
Tolerance
The Alleged Connection
between relativism and
tolerance
The Confusion
The Putative Connection
between NER and Tolerance
Some people’s motivation for accepting NER is
advocacy of tolerance.
They seem to think that NEU is necessarily
committed to intolerance or provides a basis for
intolerance. They think that NEU condemns
other cultures and holds that ours is objectively
ethically superior.
They believe that NER, denying any universally
correct standards, makes it impossible to
condemn other cultures; so, they believe, it
forces tolerance.
Their views about NEU and NER are confused.
What Normative Ethical
Universalists Do NOT Say
We know what the objectively correct moral
principles are.
The objectively correct ethical principles are
specific and thus culturally insensitive.
We are justified in coercing others to act in
accordance with the objectively correct
ethical principle.
People who do not act in accordance with
the objectively correct ethical principle are
necessarily bad people.
Why Can Normative Ethical
Universalists Endorse Tolerance?
1. They distinguish the evaluation of an action
from the evaluation of interference with (i.e., of
the prevention or penalization of) that action.
(Rachels, p.29)
This makes room for not coercing the action while
judging it to be wrong.
2. They distinguish the permissibility of an action
from the blameworthiness of the agent.
This makes room for not blaming the agent while
criticizing the action.
1. Unethical Actions and
Their Prohibition
The Fallacy:
Act A is wrong.
———————-
Therefore, act A ought to be prohibited.
The “Right to do Wrong”
It is not morally permissible to coercively
interfere with all morally wrong actions. (E.g.,
reading pornographies privately, smoking,
binge drinking etc.)
Liberty involves, as F.A. Hayek says, “The
right to go to Hell on your own road.”
2. The Permissibility of Actions
and the Blameworthiness of Agents
Because of social circumstances, an
agent’s knowledge, upbringings etc.,
people who are well (or decently)
motivated may wind up doing wrongs.
In such cases, we need to distinguish the
permissibility of the actions from the
blameworthiness of the agents who
perform these actions.
This means that even if we may take the
actions to be wrong, we may not blame
the agents themselves.
Normative Ethical Relativism and
Tolerance: Real Connection
NER says there are no universally correct ethical
requirements. Then, tolerance cannot be a
universally correct ethical requirement.
According to NER, when you urge people to be
tolerant, this judgment may well be correct
only for your culture. (I suppose here that the
principle of tolerance is correct for your
culture.)
Perhaps in another culture, intolerance is
required.