Outline and Reviewer Resource

Cultural Relativism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

the cultural practices and traditions of society.

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/5RU7M6JSVtk

Ethical Subjectivism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

one’s personal opinion.

Supernaturalism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

the word of God

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/wRHBwxC8b8I (Divine Command Theory)
https://youtu.be/r_UfYY7aWKo (Natural Law Theory)
Ethical Egoism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on
the idea that we need to prioritize the self.

Consequentialism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

the outcome of the moral decision

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/51DZteag74A (Consequentialism)
https://youtu.be/-FrZl22_79Q (Utilitarianism)
https://youtu.be/-a739VjqdSI (Utilitarianism)

Deontological Ethics or Duty An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on
Ethics the sense of responsibility or duty.

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/wWZi-8Wji7M (Deontological Ethics)
https://youtu.be/8bIys6JoEDw (Duty Ethics)

Virtue Ethics An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

the values and characteristics of the person.

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/PrvtOWEXDIQ (Virtue Ethics)
https://youtu.be/NMblKpkKYao (Virtue Ethics)

Contractarianism An ethical perspective that believes that goodness is grounded on

the conditions and contract we establish in society

Video Resource
https://youtu.be/UY3aMtMkoEU?list=PL32TobLoKLYrTk4TB4w-
kuOf_dEEmAvOg (Social Contract)
https://youtu.be/2Co6pNvd9mc (Social Contract)
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
1.1. Different Culture have Different Moral Codes
Every culture harbor with them a different moral
outlook. We have our habits, preferences, and
traditions to uphold. Some of us cremate our dead
and some bury them without touching that much.
1.2. Cultural Relativism
“Different cultures have different moral codes” – this
line represents a core principle in cultural relativism.
Because of this premise we may conclude that there
is no universal moral truth simply because of the
premise.
Cultural relativism has their own claims
1. Different societies have different moral codes
2. The moral codes of a society determine what is
right within that society.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used
to judge one society’s code as better that
another’s. there are no moral truths that hold for
all people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant.
1.3. The Cultural Difference Argument
Cultural relativism presents one fundamental
arguments.
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
The premise concerns what people believe - in some
societies, people believe one thing; in other
societies, people believe something else. The
conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
case. People may disagree in what they believe, but
it does not mean that objective truth does not exist.
Both parties may disagree but it is possible that an
objective truth exist that neither party could see.
1.4. What Follows from Cultural Relativism
It is true that cultural relativism has its issues but we
could not deny the reality that it has made it
contributions to our understanding of morality and
culture. But it has it high and low notes.
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other
societies are morally inferior to our own. One of
the main points of Cultural Relativism is that we
should never condemn a culture simply because
it is “different”. However, if Cultural Relativism
were true, then we would also be barred from
criticizing other, more harmful practices. It
establishes a level of respect and a
invulnerability depending to our approach of
this.
2. We could no longer criticize the code of our own
society. Our own societal code is not perfect. We
see that our moral code can still be improved and
develop but if we are self us unable to criticize it
then we become trap to it. If right and wrong are
relative to culture, this must be true for our own
culture, just as it is for others.
3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt.
We think that at least some social changes are
for the better. But if cultural relativism is true
then progress is placed into question. Does
progress means replace old ways with new and
improved ways? But by what standard do we
judge the new ways are better?
1.5. Why There is Less Disagreement that there seems
to be.
Customs are not just a monotonous color to look
into. Our customs are composed of different factors
that make it a custom to us. Religion, economic,
sociological, and anthropological elements exist in
building our cultural customs. There is a difference in
certain aspects but we share certain traits.
1.6. Some Values are Shared by All Cultures
There are some moral rules that all societies must
embrace, because those rules are necessary for
society or exist.
1.7. Judging a Cultural Practice to be Undesirable
Why are there cultural practices that are undesirable
and yet no one react about it. Excision is a practice of
“female circumcision” where the female genital is
 mutilated. This practice does not have religious
reasons or practical reasons but why does it
continue.
Is there a Culture-Independent Standard of Right
and Wrong?
Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare of
the people affected by it? This functions as a
standard to all culture because there is no culture
does not value human happiness.
Why, Despite All This, Thoughtful People May Be
Reluctant to Criticize Other Culture
First, there is an understandable nervousness about
interfering in the social customs of other people. (a)
judging a cultural practice to be lacking and (b)
thinking that we should announce that fact, apply
diplomatic pressure, and send in the troops. The first
is a matter of trying to see the world clearly while the
latter is a different story as a whole.
Second, people may feel, rightly enough, that we
should be tolerant of other culture.
Third, people may be reluctant to judge because they
do not want to express contempt for the society
being criticized.
1.8. Back to the Five Claims
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
This is certainly true, although some values are
shared by all cultures, such as the value of truth
telling, the importance of caring for the young,
and the prohibition against murder. And even if
there is a difference of customs, the difference is
sometime cause by certain beliefs in the culture.
2. The Moral code of a society determines what is
right within the society.
We must bear in mind the difference between
what a society believes about morals and what is
really true. The society is morally infallible – that
the morals of a culture can never be wrong.
3. There is no objective standard that can be used
to judge one society’s code as better than
another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for
all people at all times.
Yes, it is difficult to think of ethical principles that
should hold for all people at all times. However,
if we look into the practice of slavery, or stoning,
or genital mutilation, what can we say about this.
There is a way to deem it unacceptable.
4. The moral code of our society has no special
status; it is but one among many.
It is true that the moral code of our society has
no special status. We do not have heavenly
status that makes us special. However, to that
we are mere one among many is a different
conversation. It implies that all moral codes are
the same – that they are all more or less equally
good. Your is no better than mine.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We
should always be tolerant of them.
It is true that criticizing others can be arrogant
and being tolerant is generally good. But we
should not tolerate everything. Humanity has
committed terrible things and criticizing it helps
in stopping those actions.
1.9. What we can learn from Cultural Relativism
First, Cultural Relativism warns us about the dangers
of assuming that all of our practices are based on
absolute rational standards. They are not. Some of
our customs are merely conventional – merely
peculiar to our society – and it is easy to forget that.
Second, is to keep an open-mind. As we mature and
grow, we are being exposed to certain realities in
that we develop a strong feeling with in us. At certain
moments we feel an acceptance to things and
sometimes we feel things are outrageous. Cultural
Relativism provides an antidote for the dogmatism of
what we feel is right is right. Feeling does not
necessarily mean yours is right.
“Cultural Relativism is appealing simply because it is
based on a genuine insight: that many of the practices
and attitudes we find natural are only cultural products.”
 Subjectivism in Ethics
2.1. The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
The people have different opinions but where
morality is concerned, there are no “facts,” and no
one is “right.” People just feel differently about
things, and that is all there is to it. This is the basic
idea behind Ethical Subjectivism, that moral opinions
are based on our feelings and nothing more. Morality
is a matter of “sentiment” rather than “reason.”
2.2. The Linguistic Turn
If ethics has no objective basis, then morality is all
just opinion.
Simple Subjectivism. The simplest version is this:
When a person says that something is morally good
or bad, this means that he or she approves of that
thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more.
“X is morally acceptable” all means: “I approve of X”
The objection is that Simple Subjectivism cannot
account for moral disagreement. Each individual is
simply expressing an approval or disapproval of their
thought. Therefore, following this kind of thought,
there is no disagreement between them; each
should acknowledge the truth of what the other is
saying.
Emotivism (Charles Stevenson). Language is used in
various ways, sometime it is used to make
statements – that is, to state facts. However,
language is also used for other purposes like
statements of influence or statement of the
speaker’s attitudes. Moral language is not fact-
stating; it is not used to convey information, rather it
is first, a means of influencing behavior; it is trying to
persuade you to do it or not to do it. The utterance is
more like a command that a statement of fact. Moral
language is also used to express one’s attitude.
Disagreement in belief. We believe different things,
both of which cannot be true at the same time.
Disagreement in attitude. We want different
outcomes, both of which cannot occur. Both
disagreements share and are different at the same
time. According to Stevenson, moral disagreement is
disagreement in attitude. Two people may have
clashing beliefs about the facts regarding things. Yet
it is clear that they disagree in attitude.
Emotivism has the virtue of recognizing some of the
main ways which we use moral language and
certainly we sometimes use moral language to
persuade and sometimes to express attitude.
However, it is undeniable that at certain point we use
language to state fact and not merely opinion.
The Error Theory (John Mackie). The last version of
Subjectivism acknowledges that people are at least
trying to say something true when they talk about
ethics. Mackie believes that there are no “facts” in
ethics, and that no one is “right” of “wrong.”
However, he also acknowledged that people believe
they are right, and so we should interpret them as
trying to say objective truths. The moment we make
an ethical claim, we are simply putting forward a
positive claim about value: the claim that the moral
truth is on their side.
2.3. The Denial of Value
Moral theories are primarily about value, not
language. Subjectivism carries with it the attitude of
Nihilism and because of such we see no value to the
moral judgement made by the individual. Therefore,
neither side is right in their debates because there is
no “right.” The fact the both parties are merely
stating impressions and
2.4. Ethics and Science
Why is Ethical Subjectivism so attractive? “Many
thoughtful people feel they must be skeptical about
values, if they are to maintain a proper respect for
science.” Is ethics capable of objective truth?
Objective Value is like a belief in ghosts or witches
or mystics.
1. There are moral values, in the same way that
there are planets and spoons.
2. Our values are nothing more than the expression
of our subjective feelings.
Moral values, unlike sciences, is not the same as
identifying facts. Planets, elements, and chemicals
are identifiable but moral values are of a different
kind.
3. Moral truths are matter of reason; a moral
judgement is true if it is backed by better reasons
than the alternatives.
 Moral truths are objective in the sense that they are to construct sound proofs in their arguments. But
true independently of what we might want or persuasion is left to the psychologists, politicians,
believe. If there are good reasons against inflicting and product advertisers.
pain on babies, and no good reasons on the other
2.5. The Question of Same-Sex Relations
side, then it is objectively true – and not “mere
opinion” – that causing such pain is wrong. The common objection to homosexuality is through
the argument of it being “unnatural.” First,
Science as a model of objectivity. There are proofs
“unnatural” might be taken as a statistical notion. It
in science but not in the field of ethics. We can prove
is unnatural the moment is it not the usual. But
that the earth is round, or that the sun is the center
taking such argument is not clear and acceptable.
of the universe but not on the idea that abortion is
Second, the meaning of “unnatural” might be
acceptable or unacceptable.
connected to an object’s purpose. The assumption is
Moral judgments cannot be proven seems appealing. it is wrong to use parts of one’s body for anything
It is easy to believe that “proof” in ethics is other than their natural purposes. Third, because the
impossible especially when we tackle complex issues word “unnatural” has a sinister sound, it might be
like abortion. However, debate an argument are no understood simply as a term of evaluation. Perhaps
restricted to ethics, even in the field of chemistry, or it means something like “contrary to what a person
physics, or biology, the same arguments exists. Even ought to be.”
they do struggle in “proving” their claim.
The process of giving reasons can be taken
further. If we criticize Jones for being a habitual
liar, we can go on to explain why lying is bad. Lying
is bad, first, because it harms people. If I give you
false information, and you rely on it, things may
go wrong for you in all sorts of ways. Second, lying
is a violation of trust. Trusting another person
means leaving yourself vulnerable and
unprotected. When I trust you, I simply believe
what you say, without taking precautions; and
when you lie, you take advantage of my trust.
Finally, the rule requiring truthfulness is
necessary for society to exist. If we could not trust
what other people said, then communication
would be impossible. If communication were
impossible, then society would fall apart.1

So, we can support our judgements with good

reasons, and we can explain why those reason
matter. At a certain extent, perhaps people want
ethical theories to be proved experimentally, the
way scientific theories are developed. However, in
ethics, proving a hypothesis involves giving reasons,
analyzing arguments, setting out and justifying
principles, and so on. Ethical reasoning a far different
from scientific reasoning but it does not mean that it
is deficient in its capabilities.

However, we all know that proving something to

people are sometimes frustrating. Yet we must not
run together two things that are different, (1)
Proving an opinion to be correct, (2) Persuading
someone to accept you proof. It is part of philosophy

1
Does Morality Depend on Religion?
3.1. The Presumed Connection between Morality and
Religion
Why is Priest, Ministers, and Clergymen seen as a
source of moral guidance. If we look at them, they
themselves is no better or wiser than other people –
as a group, they seem to be neither better nor worse
then the rest of us. The popular thinking however,
sees morality and religion inseparable. People
commonly believes that morality can only be better
understood through the context of religion and
because of this they assume that the clergy is an
authority on morality.
3.2. The Divine Command Theory
God has told us to obey certain rules of conduct. God
does not force these rules to us because God created
us as free agents; so, we may choose what to do. But
if we live as we should, then we must follow God’s
laws. The basic idea is that God decrees what is right
and wrong. Actions that God commands us to do are
morally required; actions that God forbids us to do
are morally wrong; and all other actions are morally
neutral.2
This theory has certain advantages. (1) it
immediately solves the old problem of the objectivity
of ethics. It is objective because, it is right if God
commands it and wrong if God forbids it.3
Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do
the gods command it because it is right? The
question revolves in the concept of whether God
makes the moral truths true or whether her merely
recognizes their truth.
First, we might say that right conduct is right because
God commands it. Example, Exodus 20:16, God
commands us to be truthful. Nothing is good or bad,
except when God’s thinking makes it so.
1. This conception of morality is mysterious. If
our morality is dependent to the word of
God. Finding the source or how was it
established as such becomes a mystery that
we cannot know,
2. This conception of morality makes God’s
command arbitrary. God’s commands also
2 3
seem arbitrary because he always could
have commanded the opposite. After all,
before God issues his commands, no reasons
for or against lying exist— because God is the
one who creates the reasons.
3. This conception of morality provides the
wrong reasons for moral principles. (1) the
theory implies; if God did not exist, then child
abuse would not be wrong. (2) Bear in mind
that even a religious person might be
genuinely in doubt as to what God has
commanded. After all, religious texts
disagree with each other, and sometimes
there seems to be inconsistencies even with
in the text.
There is a way to avoid the consequences of the first
interpretation through the second option of analysis
and that is We may say that God commands us to do
certain things because they are right.
Taking this option, resolves the issues such us how
God makes it wrong, or how God is arbitrary, or how
it provides the wrong explanations for its moral
principles.
But taking the second option also carries with it
different drawbacks. For one, we abandon the
theological concept of right and wrong; that god is
the standard for both. Secondly, we accept that
reality that God commands us to be truthful because
truthfulness is right, we acknowledge a standard that
is independent of God’s will.
“Many religious people believe that they must
accept a theological conception of right and wrong
because it would be sacrilegious not to do so. “
3.3. The Theory of Natural Law
Theory of natural law has three main parts.
1. Everything in nature has a purpose.
The world has its own telos. A purpose that all of
us have no hold of.
2. A consequence to this way of thinking is that the
“laws of nature” describe not only how things
are but also how things ought to be.
When the eyes cannot see, we consider it
defective. Moral rules are now viewed as
 deriving from the laws of nature. When one
behavior is view unnatural the such acts are seen
as morally wrong.

3. We can figure out what’s right because God has

given us the ability to reason. Moreover, God has
given this ability to everyone, putting the
believer and nonbeliever in the same position.

Humans are given the same capabilities and gifts.

Man is a rational animal and at the very same
extent man is also capable of practicing one’s

However, Natural Law still has its criticisms. First,

“what is natural is good” seems open to obvious
counterexamples. Not all that is natural is good.

Second, Natural Law seems to confuse “is” and

“ought.” Facts are one thing; values are another.

Third, Natural Law is now widely rejected because its

view of the world conflicts with modern science.

3.4. Religion and Particular Moral Issues

Scripture. The scripture has been translated in

various way and means. It has been made as a
cornerstone for providing values on things and at the
same time providing support to one’s claims.

Church Traditions. Today, the church provides a

strong argument and expresses their thoughts to
certain issues. Through the pulpit or through the
teachings of the church or through the things they
express in the media. It may not be an interpretation
of the scriptures but is a stand that the church is
willing to defend for.

Rites and Rituals. The church has always created

new meaning and values through the very rites and
rituals that we paved and develop.
Ethical Egoism The argument, however, is flawed. There are things
that we do, not because we want to, but because we
4.1. Is There a Duty to Help the Starving?
feel that we ought to.

Should help the people in need? This way of thinking

The second flaw of the concept is that not all
assumes that we have duties to others simply
personal desires are desires for the interest of
because they could be helped or harmed by what we
oneself but are sometimes desires to the happiness
do. If a certain action would benefit (or harm) other
of others. Not all strong desires are self-interested,
people, then that is a reason why we should (or
in accessing whether an action is self-interested, the
should not) perform that action. The commonsense
issue is not whether the action is based on a desire;
assumption is that other people’s interests count,
the issue is what kind of desire it is based on. If you
from a moral point of view. One’s action needs to be
want to help someone else, then your motive is
thought through because such action is not isolated
altruistic, not self-interested.
in our own world.
The Argument That We Always Do What Makes Us
On their view, known as Ethical Egoism, each person
Feel Good. The second argument for Psychological
ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
Egoism appeals to the fact that so-called altruistic
exclusively. This is the morality of selfishness. It holds
actions produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the
that our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves.
person who performs them. Acting “unselfishly”
Other people matter only insofar as they can benefit
makes people feel good about themselves, and that
us.
is why they do it.

4.2. Psychological Egoism

But not all sacrifices themselves for their own
benefit. Some helps others because at that time they
Ethical Egoism claims that each person ought to
felt the need to help. Our desire to help others often
pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively.
comes first; the good feelings we may get are merely
Contrary to Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism
a by-product.
asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or
her own self-interest exclusively. Both concepts are
Conclusion about Psychological Egoism. People like
different because Ethical Egoism claim an ought in
the theory because of its cynical view of human
our action rather than a does claimed by
nature. Others may like its simplicity. And, indeed, it
Psychological Egoism.
would be pleasing if a single factor could explain all
human behavior.
Is Altruism Possible? They various stories and
remarkable tales of human’s capability to be
4.3. Three Arguments for Ethical Egoism
altruistic. World war 2 proved that there are certain
people who are willing to sacrifice for the sake of
Ethical Egoism, again, is the doctrine that each
others. If you look at our lives, an act guided by our
person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest
care for others is not a rare occasion nor a rare act to
exclusively. Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the
find.
principle of self-interest accounts for all of one’s
obligations.
The Argument That We Always Do What We Want
to Do. “Every act you have ever performed since the
However, Ethical Egoism does not tell you to avoid
day you were born was performed because you
helping others. Sometimes your interests will
wanted something.” We pursue certain thing
coincide with the well-being of others, so you’ll help
because we want to perform it. We share food to
yourself by helping them. The theory only insists that
others because we like to share the food we have.
the benefit to others is not what makes the act right.
Rather, the act is right because it benefits you.

Nor does Ethical Egoism imply that in pursuing your
interests, you should always do what you want to, or
what offers you the most short-term pleasure.
Ethical Egoism says that a person ought to do what
really is in his or her own best interests, over the long
run. It endorses selfishness, not foolishness.
to be our friend. If we lie all the time, the same
people would not trust us and will always carry a veil
of doubt towards our own actions. The reality is that
our actions carries with it a fundamental principle of
self-interest.
4.4. Three Arguments against Ethical Egoism

Now let’s discuss the three main arguments for
Ethical Egoism.
The Argument That Altruism Is Self-Defeating. In
each case, the policy of “looking out for others” is
said to be self-defeating. If we want to do what is
best for people, we should not adopt so-called
altruistic policies. On the contrary, if each person
looks after his or her own interests, everyone will be
better off.
(1) We ought to do whatever will best promote
everyone’s interests. (2) The best way to promote
everyone’s interests is for each of us to pursue our
own interests exclusively. (3) Therefore, each of us
should pursue our own interests exclusively.
The Argument that Ethical Egoism Endorsees
Wickedness. Some of our actions especially for self-
benefit is not benevolent. Some of us pursues actions
for the sake of our own personal benefit.
The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Logically
Inconsistent. Once we pursue our personal good,
sometimes it creates inconsistency to our actions
and to what others pursue around us.
The Argument That Ethical Egoism Is Unacceptably
Arbitrary.

Ayn Rand’s Argument. Altruism for Ayn Rand is a

destructive idea, both in society as a whole and in the
lives of those taken in by it. Altruism leads us to think
that sacrificing one’s self is fine and is geared toward
a good outcome of life.
By “sacrificing one’s life,” Rand does not mean
anything so dramatic as dying. A person’s life
consists, in part, of projects undertaken and goods
earned and created. Thus, to demand that a person
abandon his projects and give up his goods is to
demand that he “sacrifice his life.”

Ethical Egoism as Compatible with Commonsense

Morality. Ordinary morality consists in obeying
certain rules. We must speak the truth, keep our
promises, avoid harming others, and so on. At first,
these duties seem to have nothing in common—they
are just a bunch of discrete rules. Yet there may be a
unity to them. Ethical Egoists would say that all these
duties spring from the one fundamental principle of
self-interest.

If we commit harm towards others, we are simply

putting ourselves in a bad situation. Harming others
simple puts us in a situation where no one is willing