Morality lets you justify being thrown on the bed and...
The readings for the first two weeks are down right depressing. A motto like "give up, but keep on going anyway!" seems quite appropriate.
draft lecture - Relativism, Absolutism, and Religion in Ethics
Culture:
- composed of beliefs, morals, and practices
- the configuration of these produces an ‘ethos’
- the rules governing an ethos, its underlying structure, is its ethics
Ethical Relativism:
- ‘descriptive ethical relativism’ highlights moral difference as a defining and ultimately indifferent feature of ethics that does not provide a scale of right or wrong
- in ‘normative ethical relativism’ moral differences are understood as signs of people interpreting moral good/evil in different and sometimes incorrect and/or conflicting ways
- Hinman ‘over-rationalises’ culture, and in doing so overlooks the spontaneity that creates an ‘ethos’
Moral Absolutism:
- in ‘religious absolutism’ all ethical demands can be reduced to a divine command or sacred order of things
- in ‘secular absolutism’ there is an insistence on having a necessary respect for the ‘transcendent elements’ common to every ethos, and in defining/grounding an ethos these elements are greater than merely the sum of the parts of a culture or ethos
- Hinman endorses the qualities of religious ethics such as the Navajo but overlooks secular belief or ‘what we don’t know we know’, what we assume (Zizek on Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq)
Hinman’s Moral Pluralist Approach:
- ‘moral pluralism’ emphasises the need to resolve differences through negotiation and compromise, and runs the risk of a deadlock emerging
- pluralism is a liberal/secular position which can be found in both scientific and religious contexts, it refers to a course of action acceptable ‘until the end of days’
- ‘the good pluralist’ insists on cultural tolerance, the need for action, and accepts that one group’s refusal to compromise can result in an insurmountable deadlock
- pluralism does not fix the problem of tokenising cultures present in the multicultural context where this moral theory is most applicable, it wants to ‘have the cake and eat it too’
Who is subject to the ethics of an ethos?
- the ‘descriptive ethical relativist’ says “everyone, everywhere, at any time”
- the ‘normative ethical relativist’ says “everyone within a situation, at any moment”
- the ‘religious absolutist’ says “all believers, all the time”
- the ‘secular absolutist’ says “everyone, whether they believe in their ethos or not”
- the ‘moral pluralist’ says “everyone who resolves a moral problem or acts in a way consistent with their cultural surrounds and environment”
- the ‘secular pluralist’ says “only those who are willing to compromise, not people who refuse to negotiate”
Singer was on tv last night talking about 'ethical eating'. It's a nice thought, I like it. But I also like small batch made cheese, like the stuff from Heidi Farm. And, as tempting as it is to bring a food issue into the lecture I think the Wii example might grab their attention more -- humour sells things. I'm sure Singer has a sense of humour; but when was the last time you heard an ethicist crack a joke?
~Niveau
draft lecture - Relativism, Absolutism, and Religion in Ethics
Culture:
- composed of beliefs, morals, and practices
- the configuration of these produces an ‘ethos’
- the rules governing an ethos, its underlying structure, is its ethics
Ethical Relativism:
- ‘descriptive ethical relativism’ highlights moral difference as a defining and ultimately indifferent feature of ethics that does not provide a scale of right or wrong
- in ‘normative ethical relativism’ moral differences are understood as signs of people interpreting moral good/evil in different and sometimes incorrect and/or conflicting ways
- Hinman ‘over-rationalises’ culture, and in doing so overlooks the spontaneity that creates an ‘ethos’
Moral Absolutism:
- in ‘religious absolutism’ all ethical demands can be reduced to a divine command or sacred order of things
- in ‘secular absolutism’ there is an insistence on having a necessary respect for the ‘transcendent elements’ common to every ethos, and in defining/grounding an ethos these elements are greater than merely the sum of the parts of a culture or ethos
- Hinman endorses the qualities of religious ethics such as the Navajo but overlooks secular belief or ‘what we don’t know we know’, what we assume (Zizek on Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq)
Hinman’s Moral Pluralist Approach:
- ‘moral pluralism’ emphasises the need to resolve differences through negotiation and compromise, and runs the risk of a deadlock emerging
- pluralism is a liberal/secular position which can be found in both scientific and religious contexts, it refers to a course of action acceptable ‘until the end of days’
- ‘the good pluralist’ insists on cultural tolerance, the need for action, and accepts that one group’s refusal to compromise can result in an insurmountable deadlock
- pluralism does not fix the problem of tokenising cultures present in the multicultural context where this moral theory is most applicable, it wants to ‘have the cake and eat it too’
Who is subject to the ethics of an ethos?
- the ‘descriptive ethical relativist’ says “everyone, everywhere, at any time”
- the ‘normative ethical relativist’ says “everyone within a situation, at any moment”
- the ‘religious absolutist’ says “all believers, all the time”
- the ‘secular absolutist’ says “everyone, whether they believe in their ethos or not”
- the ‘moral pluralist’ says “everyone who resolves a moral problem or acts in a way consistent with their cultural surrounds and environment”
- the ‘secular pluralist’ says “only those who are willing to compromise, not people who refuse to negotiate”
Singer was on tv last night talking about 'ethical eating'. It's a nice thought, I like it. But I also like small batch made cheese, like the stuff from Heidi Farm. And, as tempting as it is to bring a food issue into the lecture I think the Wii example might grab their attention more -- humour sells things. I'm sure Singer has a sense of humour; but when was the last time you heard an ethicist crack a joke?
~Niveau