CmdrWilkens wrote:The Dark wrote:The problem with skepticism is it refuses to take a stand. It's like some of DW's fundie debates: you can't pin a skeptic down to anything. They're the Jell-O of philosophy.
Skepticism is actually more of the Angnosticism of ethcis. It basically is that there might morals (otherwise they'd be nihilists) but they'd like proof either way.
True, but I was more trying to point out that you can't get them to say something is right or wrong, only that it's right or wrong "for that individual". Very irritating in a debate.
ER, OTOH, provides even more problems. Under ER, the Holocaust was moral; the Nazi German culture believed it was right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was immoral because he attempted to force change on society.
Now Ethical Relativism is not nearly as bad as you supposse, though I still feel its inadequate. Your example of the Holocaust is actually incorrect in that is presupposses that Nazi Germany fully subscribed to the idea AND that it was correct for that culture (in fact as a general examination of anti-semeticism would show it tends to be bad for nations so becoming anti-semetic actually hurt Nazi Germany which thus must either value sado-masocism or be violating its own morals).[/quote]Hmm...my professor agreed with the Nazi Germany example because: 1) the culture subscribed to the idea sufficiently to support leaders who subscribed to the idea fully, and 2) ER (as defined by liberal ER writers we've read) claims that any action within a culture is right for that culture. We may be working from slightly different definitions.
Soft Universalism: There are a few moral absolutes, generally don't kill or lie maliciously, but even then there can be exceptions (its like the English language of ethics)
Some try to use ethical calculus, figuring the balance of moral and immoral in each action. The soccer team that crashed in the Andes and resorted to cannibalism to survive is an example of the sanctity of life (moral within their society) being stronger than cannibalism (immoral within their society).
Ethical calculus falls more under Hard universalism since it presupposse a hard and fast set of rules. In fact the best example of ethical calculus would be Kant's Dentology.[/quote]Reading back over what I wrote, I really don't know what I was thinking when I typed that. I meant to say that some people form an informal hierarchy of ethical values (in that X has more influence than Y, but maybe not as much as Z, so X may be right or wrong depending on whether Y or Z are true, but it can also depend on circumstance).
Hard Universalism: Multiple varieties of all encompassing moral codes such as
-Egoism
-Utilitarianism
-Kant's Deontology
-Virtue Ethics
Also includes Divine Command Theory. These all suggest ultimate moral codes that must be followed. Some of the moral codes can be combined (for example, there could be a soft universalist ethical relativist). Don't ask me what those people would believe, since I'm not sure, but they do exist. As for me, I'm a soft universalist as well.
Well a soft universalist basically IS an ethical relativist the only difference being that he views the "culture" as humanity in general and allows that exceptions can occur in extreme cases.[/quote]The main difference I see is that an ER thinks each culture is correct in its practices for that culture. I believe there are some absolute morals, but that different cultures have different ways of expressing those morals. Using the Greeks and Callatians, both wished to honor their dead, but one cremated and the other practiced cannibalism. A typical ER (or at least the typical ER in my ethics class
) would consider those different moral values.
