Present and explain Conventionalism. Present, explain, and evaluate the Cultural Differences Argument.
Conventionalism says that there are no objective moral truths. An objective truth would be a statement that is true
independently of how individuals or groups of people happen to think or feel about it. So, for example, if someone
said that there is life on Mars that would either be true or false, where it’s truth would depend on what was
happened on Mars in the past—it wouldn’t depend on whether you or I believed it or liked the idea of there having
been life on Mars at some point. An example of a non-objective truth would be if someone said that pudding
tastes good. That might be a true statement on his part, but it’s not an objective truth since its truth depends on
his attitude toward pudding. Basically, when someone says “Pudding is good” they just mean “Pudding tastes good
to me” or “I like pudding”. Conventionalism says something similar about moral claims. There aren’t any objective
facts about whether something is right or wrong. When someone makes a statement of the form “X is right” he
just means “His society likes or approves of X” and when someone else makes a statement of the form “X is
wrong” she just means “Her society disapproves of X.” So, if I said “Infanticide is wrong” I would just be saying “My
(American) society disapproves of infanticide”. Since most Americans disapprove of infanticide, what I said was
true. On the other hand, if someone in an Eskimo community said “Infanticide is wrong” they would be saying “My
(Eskimo) society disapproves of infanticide”. And that would be false (or at least it used to be false), since the
Eskimo culture was ok with infanticide. So, basically, the conventionalist says that there are all these different
cultures with different attitudes towards different actions, and each culture’s attitude determines whether or not
that behavior is morally ok in that society. But there’s no further question of which culture has it “right”.
One argument against objectivism was the Cultural Differences Argument. It went like this:
So,
(1)
(2)
(3)
Different cultures have different beliefs about morality.
If (1), then there are no objective moral truths.
There are no objective moral truths.
Comment [MSOffice1]: NOTE: This is the #1
place where people lose points on exams. Here’s a
basic tip: When explaining a view or an argument,
pretend like you’re talking to someone who has
never heard this stuff before.
Comment [MSOffice2]: When explaining a
view, be sure to define key terms.
Comment [MSOffice3]: It’s always smart to use
examples or analogies when explaining something.
Comment [MSOffice4]: You don’t need to
present a view (or argument) word-for-word, but
what you write down should be pretty close to what
is on the PPT presentation.
Comment [MSOffice5]: It’s always smart to
summarize the view or argument under discussion
in your own words.
Comment [MSOffice6]: You do not need to
present arguments in premise-conclusion format.
HOWEVER, in my experience, students who don’t
write out the argument in this way often forget key
steps.
The reasoning behind (1) is pretty straightforward. Anthropologists have shown that societies have totally different
beliefs and practices when it comes to religion, politics, and even morality. For example, the ancient Greeks
thought that it was right to burn the dead, whereas the ancient Callatians thought that the dead should be eaten.
(2) just says that, if you’ve got a cross-cultural differences like this, there isn’t any objective fact about who’s
“right” or “wrong”. Different cultures just do things in different ways. Burning the dead is right for the Greeks, but
wrong for the Callatians. So there isn’t any objective moral truth.
Comment [MSOffice7]: When explaining
arguments, you need to define all of the key terms
and state the argument in your own words. But, you
also need to present the rationale behind each step
of the argument. Here’s a basic tip: When providing
the rationale behind an argument, pretend that
you’re trying to convince someone to accept the
premises.
We talked about two objections to this argument in class. First, there is the worry that there isn’t as much
disagreement over morality as it might seem. We talked about the case of different traffic laws in the US and the
UK. In the US we say that you should drive on the right and in the UK they say that you should drive on the left. But
BOTH laws are motivated by the same basic principle: auto fatalities and injuries and property damage are bad
things. The two governments just enforce the basic moral principle in different ways. It might be the same way
with the Greeks and Callatians. Everyone agrees on the basic moral principle, which is that we should honor our
dead. The two cultures just obey this principle in different ways. The main point is this: To get to the conclusion
that there are NO objective truths, you would have to start off with the premise that there is NO agreement on
morality. But understood in this way, (1) just seems false. It looks like all cultures accept at least some of the same
basic moral principles. The second objection had to do with (2) and the distinction between belief and truth. The
basic worry was this: just because two societies have different beliefs on something doesn’t mean that there is no
objective truth to the matter. Some societies believe that the earth is spherical and some think that it is flat. But
the people that think it’s flat are just wrong. There is an objective truth about the shape of the earth. The
objectivist will ask: Why think it’s any different with morality? Most cultures disapprove of genocide, but some
seem to be ok with it. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no truth about whether genocide is “really” wrong or
not.
Comment [MSOffice8]: You can never have too
many examples.
When we were talking about conventionalism I just kept thinking about what my mom used to say: Would you
jump of a bridge just because all of your friends were doing it? Conventionalism basically says that you should do
what everyone else in your group does or approves of, but that seems stupid.
Comment [MSOffice9]: Remember: When
evaluating an argument, you need to discuss ALL of
the objections from the PPT presentations.
Forgetting an objection can cost you significant
points.
Comment [MSOffice10]: When giving an
objection, be sure to say which part of the argument
is being attacked.
Comment [MSOffice11]: When evaluating an
argument, your primary goal is to explain the
objections from class. But you can always add your
own take on things as well. Giving your own opinion
will never hurt, and it can help.