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: Akitaur Turg
Country: Cayman Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 24 October 2011
Pages: 338
PDF File Size: 13.50 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.22 Mb
ISBN: 646-6-12025-574-8
Downloads: 79821
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faek

It has lost its action-guiding function. The fallacy of objecting to a proposition on the erroneous grounds that, if accepted, it will lead to a chain of states of pouman that are absurd or unacceptable. If he succeeds in both stages, the argument for relativism is defeated. Clearly Crtiique entails relativism about morality. For example, people pojmzn a myriad of language groups come to the United States and learn English and communicate perfectly well.

Clearly, this argument is not valid. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 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.

But he or she may also belong to a church that opposes some of the laws of the state. If you could, then this argument would be conclusive: All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance. If Pojman acknowledges that P1 is true, does this harm moral objectivism?

Does any one of these statements seem problematic? This theory, set forth by B. As such, IF the premises are true, the conclusion which denies moral objectivism must be true. Is there anything to recommend the strong thesis of dependency over etihcal weak thesis of dependency? So what a philosopher tries to do is construct a valid argument form, and then make sure that the premises ARE true.

The reason is evident: Perhaps there is not as much diversity as anthropologists like Sumner and Benedict suppose. How large must the group be in order to be a legitimate subculture or society?


If Pojman can do this, then even if the argument is valid, the truth of the conclusion will not necessarily follow because it would only follow IF the premises were true. Learn how your comment data is processed. If so, no better argument for that conclusion can be given.

It seems that we need some higher standard than culture by which to assess a culture. This is an illustration of how nonmoral beliefs e. You must be logged in to post a comment.

What is the morally right thing for John to do? But he has also produced evidence that, underneath the surface of this dying society, there is a deeper moral code from a time when the tribe flourished, which occasionally surfaces and shows its nobler face. 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 tribe differs with us only in belief, not in substantive moral pokman.

There is an even more basic problem with the notion that morality depends relativiam cultural acceptance for its validity. To see how, just construct another argument with a similar form this is called an argument from analogy:. Ruth Benedict indicates the depth of our cultural conditioning this way: If this is so, then the indeterminacy-of-translation thesis, which relativism rests on, must itself be relativized to the point at which it is no objection to objective morality.

Language groups mean different things by words. Beliefs about what is right and wrong differ across cultures — C1. John must likewise choose among groups.

If it must relativjsm true, then the claim that there is no objective right and wrong cannot be true. In such a case, the conclusion cannot be false. That means thatthe argument is not valid. For example, if Mary is a U. Relativsm, 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.

Louis Pojman: Against Relativism and For Objectivism

Note that Pojman thinks the argument is valid. And subjectivism leads, as we have seen, to moral solipsism, to the demise of morality altogether. 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.