Metaethical Cultural Relativism Argument

1. 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 identify objections to the argument you make.  (minimum 400 words).
2. 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)

Argument on Metaethical Cultural Relativism

Metaethical Cultural Relativism (MCR) posits that moral judgments and ethical standards are culturally dependent, implying that there is no objective or universal moral truth. This theory suggests that what is considered morally right or wrong varies from one culture to another and that no culture’s ethics are superior to another’s. I argue that MCR is false because it fails to account for the existence of universal moral principles and can lead to ethical inconsistencies.

Reasoning Against MCR

1. Existence of Universal Moral Principles: Despite cultural differences, some moral principles appear to be universally acknowledged. For example, prohibitions against murder, theft, and lying are found in nearly all societies. This suggests that there are underlying moral truths that transcend cultural boundaries.
2. Moral Progress: If MCR were true, the concept of moral progress would be incoherent. However, history shows that societies have undergone moral development, such as the abolition of slavery and the recognition of human rights. These changes indicate an objective improvement in moral standards, which contradicts the idea that morality is purely relative.
3. Moral Disagreements: MCR implies that moral disagreements between cultures are merely differences in opinion, with no possibility of resolving them through rational debate. However, many moral disputes are resolved through dialogue and understanding, suggesting that there are objective criteria for determining moral truth.

Objections to the Argument

1. Cultural Diversity: Proponents of MCR argue that the vast diversity of moral beliefs across cultures supports the view that morality is relative. They claim that imposing a universal moral standard is ethnocentric and disregards the legitimacy of other cultural practices.
2. Tolerance and Respect: MCR advocates emphasize the importance of tolerance and respect for different cultures. They argue that acknowledging moral relativism promotes understanding and peaceful coexistence among diverse groups.

Defense Against Objections

1. Universal Principles with Cultural Variation: While there is cultural diversity, this does not preclude the existence of universal moral principles. These principles can manifest differently in various cultural contexts without losing their fundamental nature. For example, the value of human life is universal, but cultural practices around honoring this value can vary.
2. Respecting Diversity Within Universal Ethics: Promoting universal moral standards does not necessitate the imposition of one culture’s ethics on another. It is possible to respect cultural diversity while upholding fundamental human rights and moral principles that protect individuals’ well-being.

In conclusion, MCR is false because it ignores the existence of universal moral principles and fails to account for moral progress and the resolution of moral disagreements. While cultural diversity is real, it does not negate the presence of underlying moral truths that apply across cultures.

Argument for Kantianism Over Utilitarianism

When choosing between Utilitarianism and Kantianism as a moral theory, I argue that Kantianism is the better option. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is based on the principle of maximizing happiness or utility. In contrast, Kantianism, developed by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the importance of duty, moral rules, and the inherent dignity of individuals.

Defense of Kantianism

1. Respect for Individuals: Kantianism is grounded in the belief that individuals have intrinsic worth and should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. This principle, known as the categorical imperative, ensures that every person is respected and valued, regardless of the consequences.
2. Moral Consistency: Kantian ethics provide a consistent and reliable framework for making moral decisions. By adhering to universal moral laws that apply to all rational beings, Kantianism avoids the pitfalls of subjective interpretation and situational variability inherent in utilitarian calculations.
3. Rights and Justice: Kantianism prioritizes the protection of individual rights and the pursuit of justice. It avoids the potential for utilitarianism to justify morally questionable actions if they result in greater overall happiness. For example, under utilitarianism, sacrificing one innocent person to save many others could be deemed acceptable, whereas Kantianism would categorically reject such an action as morally wrong.

Objections to Kantianism

1. Rigidity and Inflexibility: Critics argue that Kantianism can be overly rigid and inflexible, failing to account for complex situations where moral rules may conflict or where following a rule strictly could lead to harmful consequences.
2. Lack of Practical Guidance: Some claim that Kantianism lacks practical guidance in real-world scenarios, as it focuses on abstract principles rather than tangible outcomes. This can make it difficult to apply Kantian ethics to everyday moral dilemmas.

Defense Against Objections

1. Principled Flexibility: While Kantianism emphasizes strict adherence to moral rules, it also allows for principled flexibility through the use of rational judgment. Kant’s framework includes the concept of duties to oneself and others, which can guide individuals in resolving moral conflicts while maintaining respect for human dignity.
2. Clear Ethical Standards: The clarity of Kantian principles provides a strong foundation for moral decision-making. By focusing on the inherent worth of individuals and the necessity of universal moral laws, Kantianism offers clear ethical standards that can be applied consistently across various situations.

In conclusion, Kantianism is superior to utilitarianism because it ensures respect for individuals, provides moral consistency, and prioritizes rights and justice. Despite criticisms of rigidity and lack of practical guidance, Kantianism offers a principled approach to ethics that upholds the inherent dignity and worth of every person, making it a more robust and reliable moral theory.