Dr. Ari Santas Notes on Applied Ethics

II. Moral Skepticism: Relativism and Egoism

A. Species of Relativism 1 Relativism is a challenge to both tradition and to ethical theory; it is a form of moral skepticism: -how do we know that we have the right set of moral rules? -how do we know whether there should be any external rules? To be able to address such a challenge, we need to get clear on relativism-- what it amounts to. We can start off by noting that there are various kinds of relativism, not always telling us the same thing:

RELATIVISM NORMATIVE DESCRIPTIVE Ethical Cultural Relativism Subjectivism? Anthropology

The main division is between normative and descriptive theories of relativism. -the descriptive theories are the ones that you read about in anthropology textbooks -the normative theories are the one that philosophers often complain about What they share is conclusions concerning seemingly opposite moral practices across different cultures.

B. Descriptive Relativism These sorts of studies are nothing new, but have been going on since ancient times -Herodotus, in ancient Greece, noted how Darius, king of Persia, took delight in watching naïve peoples undergo culture shock (the funerary practices of Greeks and Callatians) In more recent eras, anthropologists have gone out to remote regions and come home with bizarre stories -the Eskimos and polygamy, infanticide, and geronicide Even as our business people and soldiers visit other parts of the world, they are often stunned by the different practices -female soldiers in Saudi Arabia, bribery practices in Japan

C. Normative Relativism Given such variety in practices around the world, one is inclined to wonder who's got the right set of rules. The relativist answer is: no one does-- right and wrong are relative to: -the society in question-- this is ethical relativism -each individual-- this is subjectivism On such a view, one cannot and must never judge morality from the outside. In other words, right and wrong ought to be relative, don't try to moralize to others and worry only about yourself. What they do is right for them and what we do is right for us. For the ethical relativist, to know whether 'x' is right is to be acquainted with the practices of the society in question. For the subjectivist, it requires us to know that person's moral views

D. Problems with Subjectivism and Ethical Relativism The problems with these views are of the same nature, but on a different scale. For a subjectivist: -first, there could be no such thing as a moral standard, for everything would be up to the whims of the individual -second, one could never justify what one did to anyone else or tell someone what ought to be done, inasmuch as no 2nd or 3rd person judgments could ever be made -third, no dispute could ever be resolved rationally, for there could be no common ground or standard to appeal to-- by definition In short, morality cannot be a private affair, any more that language can be (consider Socrates and "destroying the laws")

1 The analysis of Relativism is largely based on that of James Rachels in Elements of Moral Philosophy. For an ethical relativist, the problems are as follows: -first, as with subjectivism, no dispute between groups could ever be resolved, for each group could tenaciously claim to be right -second, we could not condemn practices that are clearly immoral (e.g., genocide in Nazi Germany, apartheid in South Africa) -third, such a view undercuts the possibility of reform, since it claims that it is never legitimate to evaluate a moral practice from the outside (civil disobedience would always be immoral)

E. Relativism Reconstructed It would a mistake, however, to dismiss relativism as totally off base. There are lessons to learn, especially if we take another look at the apparently disparate practices and consider why they're so different. All cultures, if they are to survive, promote moralities to secure the basic needs of the society. -prohibition of (arbitrary) homicide -institutions of mating and child rearing -division of labor and standards for distribution of goods

Such fundamental human ends are reflective of the societies' most basic principles; but they are implemented by particular rules and practices that serve these ends given the circumstances in which they each find themselves. So, different living conditions warrant different practices, provided that these practices fulfill the basic needs of those in that society; and some practices really are idiosyncratic and should be tolerated, provided that they are innocuous. We can judge others, not by how close they are to us, but by how well they promote the needs of the group, individually and collectively

F. Species of Egoism 2 Another challenge to morality and ethics is egoism, which is another form of moral skepticism. It asks why there should be moral rules at all. As before, to address such a challenge, we must get more clear on the concept-- what it amounts to. Again, there are various kinds of egoism:

EGOISM NORMATIVE DESCRIPTIVE Ethical Policy Psychological Egoism Egoism? Egoism

Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory of human nature-- about the ultimate motives of human conduct. Ethical egoism is a normative theory-- one that makes prescriptions on how we should act. Policy egoism is merely a personal policy, a statement of how one is going to conduct oneself, and is not really a normative or a descriptive theory (it's a plan).

G. Descriptive Egoism Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory, claiming that people as a matter of fact always act from selfish motives: they always look out for #1. On this view, it is only when it is to our benefit that we ever help other people out. Note that this view says nothing about how people ought to behave, or anything about rules of moral conduct. In fact, those who hold this theory have normative theories very different from ethical egoism -Calvinism, for instance, which holds people to be inherently selfish, has very rigid rules -Hobbes' Leviathan offers a political rule that gives the ruler absolute power over his subjects The reason for this is that the decision on how many rules and how to gain compliance is a function of how much we believe they and their enforcement is needed: the more pessimistic the descriptive theory, the more restrictive the normative. This makes one wonder whether the theory is advance by those seeking to justify ultimate control.

The main challenge to this theory, however, is the question as to whether all human actions, including many notable examples of self-sacrifice, can be reduced to selfish motives.

2 The analysis of egoism largely follows Brian Medlin’s “Ultimate Principles and Ethical Egoism.” -a soldier jumps on a hand grenade to save his comrades -a mother pines away after the loss of a child, even to the point of losing a desire to live The psychological theorist will explain these actions in terms of selfishness

H. Normative Egoism Policy egoism will not concern us too much here, but suffice it to say that a good system of rules and sanctions will protect us from them if they choose to be parasites rather than hermits.

Ethical egoism is a normative theory, an ethical doctrine, which basically contends that "we should all act so as to pursue our own individual interests." It's not impermissible to make friends or help others, but we must do so only to the extent that it serves our interests. That is, others must always be means to our ends. This moral system is driven by one ultimate, overriding principle-- everyone do what's in your perceived best interest. Here’s a normative theory that commands us to be self-interested, whether or not we actually are! - Ayn Rand’s theory (called “objectivism”) is an example of this view

I. Connection to Capitalism This particular form of (a)moral viewpoint is important in the concept of business ethics. A dominant feature of American culture is its insistence that matters of economics should be left to the forces of self-interest. This theory was proposed in the 18th century by Adam Smith in a now famous book: The Wealth of Nations. Also called "laissez-faire economics," capitalism asks that we keep the hand of government and that of morality out of the market. The view (expressed most eloquently in the late 20th century by Milton Friedman) is that if we allow individuals to focus purely on their own self-interest-- monetary profit-- the market will ensure that beneficial consequences will follow. Notice the connection to ethical egoism: let everyone do as they will and the result will be better than if we try to control what they do. Also notice that we do not practice capitalism in Smith's sense in this country, nor have we, for a long time. There are some who claim that it has never existed anywhere except in the minds of some theorists

J. Problems with Ethical Egoism The difficulty with this view is that if we take it seriously and follow it out to its logical conclusions, we get some problems. It's not at all clear that letting everyone do as he or she pleases has optimal consequences. First, it seems to be telling people to value things that are incompatible. Since it's telling all of us to be looking out for #1, then it's telling us that what's valuable is each of us winning over each other-- something that can't be done. -it's best for Jane to win and Jack to lose -it's best for Jack to win and Jane to lose Second, it doesn't show us how to resolve moral disputes--conflicts of interests. We both want ours, what do we do? fight? Consequently, it does not give us a consistent set of commands for any given action-- a big problem if the goal is to guide conduct.

K. Egoism Reconstructed Again, it would be a mistake to dismiss this skeptical doctrine as completely wrong. If we take into account the human need to be free of external constraint, and note that too many of our rules seek arbitrary control of the masses, egoism has some important things to say. First, we must note that egoism, as a normative theory, is a reaction to authoritarianism. -the anarchism of Max Stirner was a rebellion against the despotism of 18th century Europe; -the libertarianism of Ayn Rand was a reaction to the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia Second, it's important to note that anarchistic and libertarian writers rejected the authoritarian view that humans are naturally selfish and greedy and therefore must be kept under control. Like the relativist, the egoist begins by innocently asking for people and societies to let people go about their own business, but fails to see where there must be constraints and standards. A proper egoism and a proper relativism will carefully draw a line between freedom and constraint and erect a rational standard for public policy -J.S. Mill's "Qualified Egoism" with his Harm Principle is such an attempt