Make And Defend An Argument About Metaethics

Make And Defend An Argument About Whether Or Not Metaethical Cultural

Make and defend an argument about whether or not metaethical cultural relativism (or moral relativism) is true or false. To do so you'll need not only to explain reasoning from course content but also to identify objections to the argument you make. (minimum 400 words). If your only two options for a moral theory are utilitarianism or Kantianism, which one would you pick and why? In other words, make an argument defending one or the other. You'll need to be sure to work with course material and to consider objections. In addition, since you're arguing why is better than the other you'll need to display an understanding of both moral theories. (minimum 400 words)

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Metaethical cultural relativism posits that moral truths are entirely dependent on cultural perspectives; thus, what is considered morally right in one society may be deemed wrong in another without any definitive moral standard that transcends cultures. This paper aims to critically evaluate the validity of metaethical cultural relativism, considering its philosophical justifications and objections. Additionally, the paper compares utilitarianism and Kantianism—the two prominent moral theories—to argue for the superiority of one over the other, grounded in their theoretical foundations, practical implications, and responses to common objections.

Defense of Metaethical Cultural Relativism

Metaethical cultural relativism contends that moral judgments are relative to specific cultural contexts and that there are no universally valid moral standards. Its primary justification hinges on the observation of moral diversity across cultures, suggesting that morality is not anchored in an objective reality but constructed through social norms and practices. Proponents argue that this perspective promotes tolerance and respect for cultural differences, discouraging ethnocentric judgments that impose one’s values on others (Harman, 1975).

From a philosophical standpoint, cultural relativism aligns with the idea that morality is a social convention, reflecting collective agreements within a community rather than external moral truths (Rachels, 2003). This relativistic stance discourages moral imperialism and acknowledges the importance of cultural context in shaping ethical beliefs and practices.

However, significant objections challenge the coherence and practical implications of cultural relativism. One critical objection is the "moral infallibility" problem: if all moral beliefs are relative to culture, then criticizing other cultures' practices becomes impossible, undermining the possibility of moral progress or reform (Benedict, 1934). For example, practices like slavery or human sacrifice, while accepted in certain cultures, are widely condemned in others, raising the question of whether cultural relativism can adequately account for moral criticism.

Additionally, cultural relativism struggles with the problem of moral disagreement. If morality varies so significantly, establishing a common moral ground to address global issues—such as human rights violations—becomes problematic (Gayon, 2004). Critics argue that some moral principles—like justice and fairness—may nonetheless be universal, even if their specific applications differ across cultures, suggesting that moral objectivity might exist beyond cultural variations.

In response, defenders of cultural relativism argue that recognizing cultural differences does not preclude acknowledging certain universal values but calls for sensitivity and humility regarding moral judgments (Benedict, 1934). Yet, the tension remains whether such universal values can be justified independently of cultural consensus.

Choosing Between Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Given the dichotomy between utilitarianism and Kantianism, I advocate for utilitarianism due to its pragmatic approach to maximizing happiness and its flexibility in moral decision-making. Utilitarianism, primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, posits that the moral worth of an action depends on its consequences, specifically its tendency to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). This consequentialist framework offers a clear criterion for moral evaluation, emphasizing the importance of outcomes and promoting social welfare.

In contrast, Kantian ethics, rooted in Immanuel Kant’s deontological philosophy, asserts that morality is grounded in the Categorical Imperative, which mandates acting according to universal principles that can be consistently willed without contradiction (Kant, 1785). While Kantianism emphasizes moral duties and respect for persons as ends-in-themselves, its rigid adherence to universal principles can lead to morally counterintuitive results in complex situations where outcomes are not aligned with duty.

One advantage of utilitarianism is its adaptability to real-world complexities. It considers the actual impact of actions, permitting moral flexibility when necessary to achieve overall happiness. Critics, however, challenge utilitarianism for potentially justifying morally questionable acts if they lead to greater overall happiness (Frankena, 1973). Nonetheless, reforms like rule utilitarianism attempt to mitigate such issues by establishing general rules that promote happiness and prevent harm.

Kantian ethics defends individual rights and moral integrity, which utilitarianism may overlook if pursuing the greater good infringes on individual freedoms. Yet, moral dilemmas often involve conflicting duties that Kantian principles struggle to resolve practically, leading to rigid moral prescriptions that may ignore contextual nuances (Johnson & Pettit, 2002).

Considering these factors, utilitarianism’s capacity for practical moral decision-making and its emphasis on outcome-based reasoning make it preferable in addressing complex societal issues, despite its flaws. Kantianism’s strict adherence to moral duties, while admirable, can be impractical and sometimes morally problematic when duties conflict, suggesting utilitarianism as a more applicable moral framework in contemporary dilemmas.

Conclusion

Metaethical cultural relativism faces significant philosophical challenges concerning moral criticism and universality, suggesting it may be insufficient as a comprehensive moral theory. While it promotes cultural tolerance, its inability to provide a clear moral standard hampers moral progress. On the other hand, between utilitarianism and Kantianism, utilitarianism’s pragmatic and flexible approach makes it better suited for addressing real-world complexities, although it requires careful safeguards against potential abuses. Both theories have strengths and weaknesses, but a balanced assessment favors utilitarianism as a more adaptable and context-sensitive moral framework compatible with modern moral challenges.

References

  • Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Houghton Mifflin.
  • Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics. Prentice-Hall.
  • Gayon, R. (2004). The Normative Foundations of Cultural Relativism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 7(1), 1-19.
  • Harman, G. (1975). Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Journal of Philosophy, 72(22), 573-583.
  • Johnson, R., & Pettit, P. (2002). The Idea of Analyzing Ethics. In Contemporary Debates in Morality. Oxford University Press.
  • Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
  • Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
  • Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.

Related Assignments