Description
Moral realists hold that ethics consists of objective matters of fact. For example, a moral realist would claim that it is either definitively right or wrong that stealing is immoral. Some who object to moral realism and embrace nonobjectivism claim that ethics is a matter of subjective opinion that varies from person to person. For example, stealing might be immoral for Sue, but not for Jane. It would simply depend on what each person thinks about littering. Others claim that ethics is determined culturally, in that in one culture act "x" might be morally permissible, while in another culture that same act is morally wrong. Use the lectures and PowerPoints that I provided to discover more about moral objectivism, cultural relativism, and subjectivism/nonobjectivism.
Conceptual Map:
Moral objectivism/realism - Action "x" is either morally permissible or morally impermissible for all similarly situated moral agents. This could be decided using the Categorical Imperative, the Utilitarian Calculus, etc. Moral truth exists and is universal.
Subjectivism/nonobjectivism - Action "x" can be morally permissible for one person and morally impermissible for another. Nothing else determines morality besides individuals' personal opinions. Moral truth does not exist.
Cultural relativism - Action "x" can be morally permissible for the people of one culture and morally impermissible for the people of another. Nothing else determines morality besides their cultural beliefs. Moral truth exists but it is relative to one's culture.
Concrete Example:
Objectivism – For all similarly situated moral agents, stealing is morally impermissible. Kant would say that stealing is wrong in all cases. The utilitarians would say that stealing is wrong whenever stealing fails to maximize utility. The point here is that moral truth is universal for all similarly situated moral agents.
Subjectivism/nonobjectivism - Stealing for Jane is morally permissible, but it is morally impermissible for Sue. This is true merely because Jane believes that stealing is permissible and finds it ok to do, while Sue believes that it is not morally permissible. Nothing else determines morality besides individuals' personal opinions. Moral truth does not exist.
Cultural relativism - Stealing is morally permissible for Canadians, but it is morally impermissible for Russians. This is true merely because Canadians believe that stealing is permissible, while Russians believe that it is not morally permissible. Nothing else determines morality besides their cultural beliefs. Moral truth exists but it is relative to one's culture.
Here is a Venn diagram to help parse this out. The overlapping areas are crossed out since any two or more of these metaethical theories cannot be held true at the same time.
Venn diagram
Imagine that Heinz, a man with a terminally ill wife, is in a drug store attempting to procure the only medicinal cure for his wife’s mortal ailment for miles around. Without obtaining the drug from this particular pharmacy, Heinz’s wife will die. Unfortunately for the man, he does not have enough money to purchase the drug and the pharmacist refuses to give the man a break and sell the drug for a lower cost. When the phone rings, the pharmacist turns around and Heinz has the ability to steal the medication that is within arm’s reach of him. To reiterate, if Heinz steals the drug, his wife will live, and if he fails to obtain the medication then his wife will die. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say that Heinz chose to steal the drug to save his wife, which is exactly what he did. She took the drug and they lived happily ever after. Whether you agree with his decision or not, what we are interested in here is the framework of moral judgment.
Using one of the following three metaethical views: moral objectivism, cultural relativism, or subjectivism/nonobjectivism, argue for which view can best evaluate whether Heinz’s act was morally permissible or morally wrong. Remember that you are selecting a view that best describes the ideal of morality and not a view that describes how humans operate in real life. In other words, in an ideal world, what theory would best describe the source of judgment for Heinz’s action?