Homework 8 (Due 8/10 by 5:00 PM) (4 points)

Instructions
For the next few weeks, we are going to be discussing several different traditional theories of ethics. If you want more information about any of these theories, I encourage you to check out just about any general textbook on ethics or any of the resources on the web. You should be able to find a discussion of egoism, utilitarianism, Kant, etc. in any general introduction to ethics textbook and certainly on many good websites (Stanford Philosophy, Wikipedia, e.g.) For each of these theories, I want you to read the explanation I give, and then do each of the following things for homework:
1. Formulate two questions about the theory.
2. Make a short list of three advantages to this theory.
3. Make a short list of three problems you see for it.
4. Try to think of a situation where you think this theory would give the right answer morally.
5. Try to also think of a situation where you think this theory would give the wrong answer morally.
6. What would the world look like if everyone followed this theory?
7+· Answer any questions I attach at the end of the explanation.

Note: In order to earn credit on the Criteria when you do them, I expect you to show me you understand the theory without simply copying over the words from this sheet. Then I want to see you discuss the merits and problems of the theory along with an example to show me you know how it applies to reality.

Part 1: Relativism
Relativism is essentially the idea that morality is not something fixed for all people either by theory or consequences or absolute principles. Instead, morality changes depending on the culture or the individual. Cultural relativism is the idea that the right thing to do is whatever a group of people or society believe is the right thing to do. “When in Rome, do as a Roman,” is a typical cultural relativist proclamation. The individual relativist (sometimes called subjectivism) takes this one step further. He says that morality is nothing more than whatever any particular individual wants to do. The cultural relativist would say that owning slaves is acceptable as long as the entire culture approves of such a practice. Likewise, if the culture rejects slavery, then one should not own slaves. The same is true of religious belief, sexual practice, or even whether something like honesty is virtuous. Every moral dictate is defined by whatever the cultural traditions of the people in the region accept. The individual relativist would say that practices such as slavery, abortion, sexual behavior, etc. are nothing more than individual preferences which cannot be urged on a person from the outside.
The argument for cultural relativism usually goes like this:
1. If there were any firm or universal moral principles, we should expect to see them in every culture we observe.
2. When we look at various cultures, we find absolutely no agreement about anything at all morally.
3. Therefore, there must not be any firm or universal moral principles.
4. Lacking firm or universal moral principles, the right thing to do is to simply obey the instructions of a local culture.
The argument for individual relativism goes one step farther in saying that even a culture does not completely agree about very much, therefore moral truth must simply be a matter of individual opinion. Even things as seemingly absolute as rape or murder or honesty do not interest a real individual relativist. He will observe that certainly a group of people might succeed in inflicting physical punishment on a rapist, but that does not mean that rape is morally wrong. It only means that they were stronger than the rapist, just as the rapist was stronger than his victim. Such strength in no way implies any moral superiority, and ultimately everything moral is simply a matter of taste and strength to pursue that taste. In America today, individual relativism is extremely popular when it comes to questions aside from those behaviors which put other people’s interests at risk. “As long as we do not hurt other people, anything we do is okay.” This position is actually a mixture of ethical theories, but it is probably the closest to individual relativism that most ordinary people ever come.

Questions for Relativism
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. If someone wanted to know what were the ethical rules he should follow in a country like America, how would you go about evaluating our culture for an answer?
8. Does a gang count as a culture within which the ethics of the gang are right and binding on members?
9. If someone really believed in individual relativism, would you want to live near him?
10. If I intentionally spill a cup of coffee on an individual relativist, should he get upset at me?

Part 2: Egoism
Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist theory which says that the right thing to do is whatever will benefit you personally the most. As long as it is good for you, it is good to do. Essentially, this theory has one moral principle which says, “Be selfish.” For instance, if you are confronted by a beggar, you should not give him money because it is not in your self-interest to do so. That money will better serve your needs if you buy lunch with it or pay for new socks for your own children. Charity only teaches people to be dependent on others and it discourages people from making things of value because you choose to give it away for nothing rather than purchasing a product which someone has worked to make. In many ways, capitalism as an economic system is premised on the idea that people usually will act in their own self-interest. This is called being a “rational agent.” If everyone does this, people will tend to prosper because everyone is individually getting ahead. Although this theory may sound silly at first, there are certainly times where it is best to be selfish because someone who never takes care of his own needs at all is never going to be in any position to really care for the needs of others (of course an egoist is not usually looking at it from this perspective, since other people are not of any real concern.)

Psychological egoism is the idea that we always do act in our own self-interest. When you give money away (if you do), Psychological Egoism claims you do so simply because it makes you feel good. If you help a friend move into his new apartment, that is only because you hope he will help you when you need the same favor. Psychological Egoism holds that a person actually cannot be generous since everything we do is essentially selfish. It is different from Ethical Egoism in the sense that Ethical Egoism says we “should” be selfish whereas Psychological Egoism says we “just are” selfish. Thus proponents of Psychological Egoism claim that there cannot be any moral rule which requires people to be generous since people cannot be generous, and you cannot be morally required to do something you cannot ever actually do.

Questions for Egoism
1-6. Answer questions from above.
7. Can both Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism be true?
8. Do you think people can be truly generous (also called being altruistic)?