Consider these questions: Why does Rachels focus on cultural relativism, subjectivism, and religious ethics towards the beginning of The Elements of Moral Philosophy? Why does Rachels focus on cultural relativism, subjectivism, and religious ethics towards the beginning of The Elements of Moral Philosophy? And why did we skip these chapters? And why did we skip these chapters?

A short answer: Because these are examples of “ethics-avoidance disorders” that obstruct creative, constructive, ethical thinking. A short answer: Because these are examples of “ethics-avoidance disorders” that obstruct creative, constructive, ethical thinking. Relativism and subjectivism can sometimes lead to “a kind of ethical laziness,” which could be called “rationalizing” or “offhand self-justification” (e.g., one often hears excuses such as “That’s just what I think”). Relativism and subjectivism can sometimes lead to “a kind of ethical laziness,” which could be called “rationalizing” or “offhand self-justification” (e.g., one often hears excuses such as “That’s just what I think”). Religious ethics can sometimes lead to dogmatism. Religious ethics can sometimes lead to dogmatism.

Metaethics What is the status of moral values? Is ethics a viable intellectual enterprise? What is the status of moral values? Is ethics a viable intellectual enterprise? Is the current state of moral discourse one of grave disrepair? (as suggested by Alasdair MacIntyre) Is the current state of moral discourse one of grave disrepair? (as suggested by Alasdair MacIntyre)

“Through the Moral Maze: The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” Thinking about the Callatians, Greeks, and Eskimos may lead to the view that there are no absolute values, or no “universal truth in ethics.” This is cultural relativism. Thinking about the Callatians, Greeks, and Eskimos may lead to the view that there are no absolute values, or no “universal truth in ethics.” This is cultural relativism. In short, the “Cultural Differences Argument” infers from the premise that “different cultures have different moral codes,” that “there is no objective truth in morality.” In short, the “Cultural Differences Argument” infers from the premise that “different cultures have different moral codes,” that “there is no objective truth in morality.” Is this argument valid and sound? Is this argument valid and sound?

Problems with Cultural Relativism Whose view do you sympathize with more, Calvin’s or Hobbes’?

Problems with Cultural Relativism 1. No blame of other cultures for “wrong” or “evil” deeds. Are cultures morally infallible? 1. No blame of other cultures for “wrong” or “evil” deeds. Are cultures morally infallible? 2. No criticism of our own culture. 2. No criticism of our own culture. 3. No idea of moral progress. 3. No idea of moral progress. 4. In a relativist society the view of the majority rules. Is this fair? 4. In a relativist society the view of the majority rules. Is this fair? 5. Is tolerance a universal value, in which case relativism is paradoxical? 5. Is tolerance a universal value, in which case relativism is paradoxical? 6. Isn’t relativism paradoxical in another sense? 6. Isn’t relativism paradoxical in another sense? 7. Don’t we all instinctively believe that some things are universally right and wrong? 7. Don’t we all instinctively believe that some things are universally right and wrong?

Soft Universalism The view that all cultures have at least some values in common, even if they are buried beneath layers of different behavior patterns and systems of belief. The view that all cultures have at least some values in common, even if they are buried beneath layers of different behavior patterns and systems of belief. Such values commonly cited are not lying, not stealing, and allowing enough young of the culture to live (i.e., not killing) in order to preserve the culture. Such values commonly cited are not lying, not stealing, and allowing enough young of the culture to live (i.e., not killing) in order to preserve the culture. As Rachels states: “there are some rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.” (23) As Rachels states: “there are some rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for society to exist.” (23) A common standard: “Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it?” A common standard: “Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it?”

Benefits of Cultural Relativism 1. It teaches us to be cautious about “assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard” when “they are not.” (29) 1. It teaches us to be cautious about “assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard” when “they are not.” (29) 2. It teaches us to be open-minded and to avoid dogmatism. 2. It teaches us to be open-minded and to avoid dogmatism. Pluralism (diversity of points of view) is a view related to relativism that is generally viewed more positively by philosophers. Pluralism (diversity of points of view) is a view related to relativism that is generally viewed more positively by philosophers.

What do you know about Friedrich Nietzsche?

Friedrich Nietzsche ( ) Some Major Works The Birth of Tragedy (1872) Thus Spoke Zarathustra ( ) Beyond Good and Evil (1886) Twilight of the Idols (1888) The Antichrist (1888) Some Major Ideas “God is Dead.” Der Übermensch (the “Overman”) Master and Slave morality

Some Key Points Nietzsche’s Aim: Towards a Revaluation of All Values Nietzsche’s Aim: Towards a Revaluation of All Values Philology and Perspectivism: every view is only one among many possible interpretations. Philology and Perspectivism: every view is only one among many possible interpretations. “Truth is a necessary lie.” “Truth is a necessary lie.” Dionysus: the central metaphor for Nietzsche’s affirmative philosophy Dionysus: the central metaphor for Nietzsche’s affirmative philosophy

How do you interpret Z’s proclamation that god is dead? No absolutes, transcendental values or absolute principles, e.g., Judeo-Christian tradition as ultimate moral authority No absolutes, transcendental values or absolute principles, e.g., Judeo-Christian tradition as ultimate moral authority Emphasizes individual freedom in creation of values Emphasizes individual freedom in creation of values “Once the sin against god was the greatest sin, but god died, and these sinners died with him.” “Once the sin against god was the greatest sin, but god died, and these sinners died with him.” Forget otherworldly salvation Forget otherworldly salvation “…there is no devil and no hell. Your soul will be dead even before your body: fear nothing further.” “…there is no devil and no hell. Your soul will be dead even before your body: fear nothing further.”

How do you interpret Z’s teaching of the overman? “I teach you the overman. Man is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?” “I teach you the overman. Man is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?” “The overman is the meaning of the earth.” “The overman is the meaning of the earth.” “He is this lightning, he is this frenzy” “He is this lightning, he is this frenzy” Man as a bridge from “beast to overman” Man as a bridge from “beast to overman” A “creator” A “creator” Essentially metaphorical Essentially metaphorical Refers to humanity’s capacity for achieving a self- transformation of itself Refers to humanity’s capacity for achieving a self- transformation of itself

Nietzsche, The Natural History of Morals in Beyond Good and Evil Project: A Theory of Types of Morality Project: A Theory of Types of Morality Against moralists, such as Kant: ”moral systems are only a sign-language of emotions” Against moralists, such as Kant: ”moral systems are only a sign-language of emotions” Moral systems are against Nature and Reason: they constrain freedom and narrow perspectives Moral systems are against Nature and Reason: they constrain freedom and narrow perspectives

Master vs. Slave Morality Moral values originate in the ruling caste Moral values originate in the ruling caste Good and Bad Good and Bad Good=noble, one who arouses fear, necessary to have enemies Good=noble, one who arouses fear, necessary to have enemies Duty to equals, faith in oneself, hard- hearted, no sympathy, pride Duty to equals, faith in oneself, hard- hearted, no sympathy, pride Moral values originate in those who are ruled Good and Evil Evil: one who arouses fear Sympathy, kindness, warm-hearted, patience, humility

For Self-Reflection Who is the source of your values? Do they come from within yourself or through a reaction to others? Who is the source of your values? Do they come from within yourself or through a reaction to others? Do your values make you stronger or able to flourish or do they just help you cope in a cruel world? Do your values make you stronger or able to flourish or do they just help you cope in a cruel world?