Skip to main content

14 Are there any universally valid moral rights?

I used to give the students in my introductory ethics class a “Morality Quiz” on the first day of class (before we had discussed anything) to find out what they thought about a multitude of moral and metaethical questions. I tabulated their answers to five questions over eight semesters (in the last decade). Here are the results.


(13) There are no universally valid moral principles, i.e., principles which apply to all persons at all times.

TRUE: 245 (50.1%)
FALSE: 244

(15) It is always wrong to torture someone just for the fun of it.

TRUE: 448 (91%)
FALSE: 42

(16) One should be tolerant of the moral beliefs of others.

TRUE: 410 (89%)
FALSE: 52

(17) If everyone in a society thinks that it is wrong to do X, then it is wrong to do X in that society.

TRUE: 301 (61%)
FALSE: 189

If you got at least a “C” in your Logic class (or if you didn’t need to take logic because you already knew how to be logical), you should be able to see that there seems to be a contradiction between “True” answers to Q13 and Q15: Q15 purports to be a universally valid moral principle, and a “True” answer to Q13 denies there are any such things.

I didn’t ask about universally valid moral rights, but I would imagine that, if I had, the results would have been much like the results for Q13. But a huge majority would have also said that people did have a universally valid moral right against being tortured just for the fun of it.

It is also hard to reconcile a “True” answer to Q15 with a “True” answer to Q17 (which is close to a good statement of ethical relativism). What if everyone in a society thought that torture was morally permissible, how could you then say they were wrong if you answered “True” to Q15?

Toleration is very popular. But doesn’t Q16 assert something that purports to be a universally valid moral principle? And if Q17 is true, then how can you say that everyone ought to be tolerant of the beliefs of others?

Here is a perfect statement of ethical relativism:

 (18) What is right and wrong is relative to society. The very same action can be right in one society and wrong in another, even when performed in otherwise identical circumstances.

TRUE: 406 (81%)
FALSE: 95

I don’t know why more said “True” to Q18 than to Q17. I admit that Q17 is kind of crude, but if you think Q18 is true, then what makes something right in one society and wrong in another? Isn’t it because they have different moral codes, and moral codes are essentially a matter of belief?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2 Moral Relativism: Forms and Arguments (SEP) by Chris Gowans

2   MORAL RELATIVISM by Chris Gowans (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 2. Forms and Arguments In general, the term ‘relativism’ refers to many different ideas. For example, in anthropology it sometimes connotes, among other things, the rather uncontroversial notion that anthropologists should strive to be impartial and unprejudiced in their empirical inquires. However, in moral philosophy ‘relativism’ is usually taken to suggest an empirical, a metaethical, or a normative position. The empirical position is usually: Descriptive Moral Relativism (DMR) . As a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be. [5] Sometimes what is emphasized is moral diversity rather than strict disagreement. DMR is often thought to have been established by anthropology and other empirical disciplines. However, it is not uncontroversial: Empiri...
Post a Comment
Read more

4 Moral Relativism: Relativism and Tolerance (SEP) by Chris Gowans

4   MORAL RELATIVISM by Chris Gowans (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 8. Relativism and Tolerance  Relativism is sometimes associated with a normative position, usually pertaining to how people ought to regard or behave towards those with whom they morally disagree. The most prominent normative position in this connection concerns tolerance. In recent years, the idea that we should be tolerant has been increasingly accepted in some circles. At the same time, others have challenged this idea, and the philosophical understanding and justification of tolerance has become less obvious (see Heyd 1996 and the entry on toleration). The question here is whether moral relativism has something to contribute to these discussions, in particular, whether DMR or MMR provide support for tolerance (for discussion, see Graham 1996, Harrison 1976, Ivanhoe 2009, Kim and Wreen 2003, Prinz 2007: pp. 207-13 and Wong 1984: ch. 12). In this context, tolerance does not ordinarily mean in...
Post a Comment
Read more

5 Violating vs Infringing a Right

5   Violating vs Infringing a Right HO Joel Feinberg on the Famous Cabin Example  Joel Feinberg, “Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 7 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-123 At this point, it will be useful to borrow Judith Thomson's distinction between infringing and violating a person's right: ". . . we violate his right if and only if we do not merely infringe it, but more, are [102] acting wrongly, unjustly, in doing so. Now the view that rights are 'absolute' in the sense I have in mind is the view that every infringing of a right is a violating of a right."16 We can readily provide examples of rights that are not absolute in Thomson's sense. Perhaps the most plausible of these are property rights. Suppose that you are on a back-packing trip in the high mountain country when an unanticipated blizzard strikes the area with such ferocity that your life is imperiled. Fortunately, you stumble onto an unoccu...
Post a Comment
Read more