|
|
In defence of Ethical Relativism
Danny Yee (danny@STAFF.CS.SU.OZ.AU)
Thu, 12 May 1994 16:43:29 +1000
Ray Scupin writes (in a very informative and interesting message):
> As Danny Yee and others have correctly pointed out ethical relativism
> is a view that maintains that there are no ontological grounds for judging
> the practices in other societies.
But you still haven't understood what this means.
> However, this view has a normative
> basis and suggests that no one from a different culture can ever judge the
> practices of another society.
Ethical relativism does NOT have a normative basis. Ethical relativism
is NOT an ethical belief. There is absolutely no reason why an ethical
relativist cannot judge the practices of another society. (I am an
example of such a person.) To be consistent an ethical relativist must
always accept that such judgement is in the context of their own
beliefs, the norms of a culture, a legal code, or suchlike. It is quite
consistent for an ethical relativist to say any of the following:
I find female circumcision disgusting.
Female circumcision violates the UN Human Rights Charter.
Female circumcision is contrary to the whole tradition
.
.
It is perfectly consistent for an ethical relativist to campaign for
legislation outlawing female circumcision. It would also be perfectly
consistent for an ethical relativist to be an Aryan race supremacist.
It is not (intellectually) consistent for an ethical relativist to say
Female circumcision is wrong.
unless it is implicit that one of the above or something similar is meant.
Danny Yee.
|