? Why or why not? (p. 20) 2. Does objectivism require absolutism? Why or why not? (p. 20) 3. How does subjective relativism differ from cultural relativism? (p. 20) 4. What is emotivism? How does emotivism differ from objectivism? (p. 21) 5. How does subjective relativism imply moral infallibility? (p. 22) 6. According to moral subjectivism, are moral disagreements possible? Why or why not? (pp. 22–23) 7. What is the argument for cultural relativism? Is the argument sound? Why or why not? (pp. 23–26) 8. Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture? Why or why not? (pp. 24–26) 9. According to the text, how is it possible for people in different cultures to disagree about moral judgments and still embrace the same fundamental moral principles? (pp. 25–26) 10. Is there a necessary connection between cultural relativism and tolerance? Why or why not? (p. 26) 11. What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reformers? (p. 26) 12. What is the emotivist view of moral disagreements? (p. 29) 13. According to emotivism, how do reasons function in moral discourse? (p. 29)
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
Certainly! Let’s delve into each of your questions, providing concise answers followed by detailed explanations.
1. Does objectivism entail intolerance? Why or why not?
Answer: No, objectivism does not inherently entail intolerance.
Explanation: Moral objectivism posits that certain moral principles are universally valid, independent of individual beliefs or cultural norms. However, acknowledging universal moral truths doesn’t necessitate intolerance. One can uphold objective moral standards while remaining respectful and open to dialogue with those who hold differing views. Intolerance arises not from the belief in objective morals but from the unwillingness to engage with or understand differing perspectives.
2. Does objectivism require absolutism? Why or why not?
Answer: No, objectivism does not require absolutism.
Explanation: While objectivism asserts that some moral truths are universally valid, absolutism takes this further by claiming these truths have no exceptions. Objectivism allows for context and nuance, recognizing that moral principles can be universally applicable yet adaptable to specific situations. Therefore, one can be a moral objectivist without being an absolutist.
3. How does subjective relativism differ from cultural relativism?
Answer: Subjective relativism holds that moral judgments are based on individual preferences, while cultural relativism asserts that morality is determined by cultural norms.
Explanation: In subjective relativism, what’s right or wrong is entirely up to the individual; each person’s moral viewpoint is valid for them. Conversely, cultural relativism maintains that moral standards are grounded in societal or cultural contexts, meaning that moral rightness or wrongness is relative to cultural norms and practices. Thus, while subjective relativism focuses on individual perspectives, cultural relativism emphasizes collective cultural beliefs.
4. What is emotivism? How does emotivism differ from objectivism?
Answer: Emotivism is the view that moral statements express emotional attitudes rather than factual claims. Unlike objectivism,
Explanation: Emotivism suggests that when someone says, “Stealing is wrong,” they’re not stating a fact but expressing a feeling—akin to saying “Boo to stealing!” This perspective implies that moral language functions to convey emotions and influence others, not to assert objective truths. In contrast, objectivism treats moral statements as propositions that can be evaluated for truthfulness, independent of individual feelings
5. How does subjective relativism imply moral infallibility?
Answer: Subjective relativism implies that individuals cannot be morally wrong since morality is based solely on personal beliefs.
Explanation: If moral rightness is determined by individual opinion, then whatever a person believes to be right is right for them. This means individuals are morally infallible—they cannot err in their moral judgments because their beliefs define their morality. This perspective eliminates the possibility of moral disagreement or error, as each person’s viewpoint is inherently valid for them.
6. According to moral subjectivism, are moral disagreements possible? Why or why not?
Answer: No, under moral subjectivism, genuine moral disagreements are not possible because each person’s moral beliefs are valid for them.
Explanation: Moral subjectivism posits that moral judgments are based on individual preferences. If two people have differing moral views, each is correct from their perspective. Therefore, there’s no objective standard to resolve disagreements, making genuine moral disputes impossible. Disagreements become mere differences in opinion, similar to differing tastes in food or music.
7. What is the argument for cultural relativism? Is the argument sound? Why or why not?
Answer: The argument for cultural relativism is that because moral codes vary across cultures, there are no objective moral truths. However, this argument is not sound.
Explanation: Cultural relativism observes that different societies have different moral practices and concludes that morality is culturally defined. However, the mere existence of differing beliefs doesn’t prove that all moral claims are equally valid or that objective moral truths don’t exist. Just because cultures disagree doesn’t mean there’s no right answer; it could indicate that some cultures are mistaken. Therefore, the argument commits the fallacy of deriving an “ought” from an “is” and lacks soundness.
8. Does the diversity of moral outlooks in cultures show that right and wrong are determined by culture? Why or why not?
Answer: No, the diversity of moral outlooks doesn’t necessarily mean that right and wrong are culturally determined.
Explanation: While cultures have different practices and beliefs, this diversity doesn’t prove that morality is entirely culture-dependent. Some moral principles, like prohibitions against murder or theft, are nearly universal, suggesting the existence of objective moral standards. Differences in moral practices may reflect varying applications of shared principles rather than entirely distinct moral frameworks.
9. According to the text, how is it possible for people in different cultures to disagree about moral judgments and still embrace the same fundamental moral principles?
Answer: People may share fundamental moral principles but apply them differently due to cultural contexts, leading to differing moral judgments.
Explanation: For instance, two cultures might value respect for the dead but express this value through different funeral practices. The underlying principle is the same, but its manifestation varies. Such differences in application can lead to apparent moral disagreements, even when the foundational values align.
10. Is there a necessary connection between cultural relativism and tolerance? Why or why not?
Answer: No, cultural relativism doesn’t necessarily promote tolerance.
Explanation: While cultural relativism advocates understanding moral practices within cultural contexts, it doesn’t inherently endorse tolerance. If a culture deems intolerance as morally acceptable, cultural relativism would consider that stance valid within that culture. Therefore, cultural relativism can, paradoxically, justify intolerance, undermining the very tolerance it aims to promote.
11. What does cultural relativism imply about the moral status of social reformers?
Answer: Cultural relativism implies that social reformers are morally wrong when they challenge prevailing cultural norms.
Explanation: If morality is defined by cultural norms, then anyone opposing those norms is acting immorally. This perspective would label figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi as immoral during their reform efforts, despite their contributions to moral progress. Such an implication challenges the validity of cultural relativism, as it fails to account for the positive impact of moral reformers.
12. What is the emotivist view of moral disagreements?
Answer: Emotivism views moral disagreements as clashes of emotional attitudes rather than disputes over factual claims.
Explanation: According to emotivism, when individuals disagree morally, they’re expressing conflicting emotions or attitudes. For example, one person’s “Stealing is wrong” expresses disapproval, while another’s “Stealing is acceptable” expresses approval. These aren’t factual disagreements but differences in emotional responses, making moral debates more about persuading others than resolving factual disputes.
13. According to emotivism, how do reasons function in moral discourse?
Answer: In emotivism, reasons in moral discourse serve to influence others’ attitudes and persuade them to share one’s emotional responses.
Explanation: While emotivism holds that moral statements express emotions, it acknowledges that people use reasons to support their moral views. These reasons aren’t about proving objective truths but about appealing to others’ emotions and encouraging them to adopt similar attitudes. Thus, reasoning in moral discussions is a tool for persuasion rather than factual demonstration.
