A Critique of Ethical Relativism. MT Louis P. Pojman. Objectively. Therefore,. Ethical Relativism is the idea that moral rightness & wrongness. Louis Pojman: Against Relativism and For Objectivism conclusion (which denies moral objectivism) must be true. If moral objectivism must be. View Critique of Relativism from BUL at University of Florida. II. 3 A Critique of Ethical Relativism1 Louis Pojman In this article I first analyze the structure of.

Author: Yoshicage Fegar
Country: Belarus
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 27 February 2008
Pages: 331
PDF File Size: 11.42 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.24 Mb
ISBN: 389-4-80463-784-1
Downloads: 55679
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozahn

If moral objectivism must be false, then moral relativism must be true. On the other hand, a denial of complete cultural relativism i. Now Pojman realizes that the first premise called Ethiczl in the argument for relativism is not objectionable. Quine,13 holds that relahivism are often so fundamentally different from each other that we cannot accurately translate concepts from one to another. This thesis holds that language is the essence of a culture and fundamentally shapes its reality, cutting the culture off from other languages and cultures.

What is the morally right thing for John to do? The conclusion here lojman NOT necessarily true, even if the premise P1 is true. This means that philosophers strive to make their arguments deductively valid.

A Critique of Ethical Relativism | Papers at

Nevertheless, the relativists still have at least one more arrow in their quiver — the argument from the indeterminacy of translation. If you go to various cultures, you will find various different definitions of right and wrong. Conclusion Ethical relativism — the thesis that moral principles derive their validity from dependence on society or individual choice — seems plausible at first glance, but on close scrutiny it presents some severe problems.


The two camps are:. We could still imagine a culture that was an exception to the rule and be unable to criticize it.

We distinguished a weak and a strong thesis of dependency. What is considered morally right and wrong varies delativism society to society, so there are no moral principles that all societies accept. Of course, if my partner dies, I could still claim that I was acting from an originally social set of norms.

Louis Pojman: Against Relativism and For Objectivism

If two or three people decide to make cheating on exams morally acceptable for themselves, via forming a fraternity, Cheaters Anonymous, at their university, then cheating becomes moral. The purpose of morality is to settle interpersonal conflicts. As such, IF the premises are true, the conclusion which denies moral objectivism must be true. Language groups mean different things by words. Ruth Benedict indicates the depth of our cultural conditioning this way: Note that Pojman thinks crtique argument is valid.

In Europe, politeness to a stranger might mean kissing the stranger on both cheeks. The trouble with this option is that it seems to lead back to counterintuitive results.

Why not rape, as well? This is a statement by Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V. But experience seems to falsify this thesis.

This is the form of P2 Pojman wants to attack. In spite of this weak dependency on nonmoral factors, there could still be a set of general moral rthical applicable to all cultures and even recognized in most, which etthical culture could disregard only at its own expense.

John Ladd, Ethical Relativism Wadsworth,p. Thus, there is no objective right and wrong. If Pojman can do this, then even ethocal the argument is valid, the truth of the conclusion will not necessarily follow because it would only follow IF the premises were true.


If he succeeds in both stages, the argument for relativism is defeated. For example, if Mary is a U. Ethical relativism — the thesis that moral principles derive their validity from dependence on society or relativksm choice — seems plausible at first glance, but on close scrutiny it presents some severe problems.

However, though we may fear the demise of morality, as we have known it, this in itself may not be a good reason for rejecting relativism — that is, for judging it false.


Before he attacks P2 he must be sure that he is attacking the right version of P2. For example, people from a myriad of language groups come to the United States and learn English and communicate perfectly well.

But he or etthical may also belong to a church that opposes some of the laws of the state. Although each culture does have a particular language with different meanings — indeed, each person has his or her own particular set of meanings — we do learn foreign languages and learn to translate across linguistic frameworks.

Is there anything to recommend the strong thesis of dependency over the weak thesis of dependency? The weak thesis says that the application of principles depends on the particular cultural predicament, whereas the strong thesis affirms that the principles themselves depend on that predicament.