I found todays lecture to be very interesting and made me have several realizations while I was reading. I have never thought about morality in terms or realism and relativism however, after reading this I struggle to determine where I stand on the matter. I think it is probably through good upbringing that the I take morals to be given by some higher power. But through introspection I have been able to realize that the morals that I hold true are ideas that were held by people before me and because of their success they have been passed down. I think that this hold's truest with cultural relativism, which suggests that all morals are is a set of commonly agreed upon ideas for what is right and wrong. One of the questions on the quiz made me think very critically asking if we thought that god or some other higher power determines the code that we live by. The rational part of myself is very quick to dismiss this idea, how can our morals be determined from a higher power if there has never actual been a scientifically confirmed connection with a god.
However, there is also a part of me that believes that some morality is born into us and is almost primal in nature. I present the idea of a mother taking care of her young, for humans we consider the idea of a mother taking care of her baby. I like this example because it is not an idea that is not limited to humans, i.e. bears, deer, etc. This idea suggests that there is some sort of deeper bond between mother and child. And I think that this idea of morality within a family is what gave me some trouble answering questions on the quiz.
The question on the quiz about the boy and the mother posed and interesting question for me. Which is what precedent is supreme here. On one hand we have the notion of a last wish which the agrees to then blatantly disregards once the mother has passed. The good part of me wants to believe that he is a good son and would want to make his mother happy. However, the accompanying task of having to visit his mother every week may be tough and maybe slightly unreasonable and if he made the promise to give his mother some comfort before her passing then I see the merit there too. I think that this touches a gray area of ethics that is should we be truthful and hurtful or lie to let her ease her mind.
I was also interested by question about the cat. My initial reaction is repulsion, I am the owner of a cat, and I would never eat my cat under my own free will even if it had died. However, it took me a brief second to consider that all this person has done is eat an animal that is already dead. What they have done is eat a dead animal, something that I do daily.
I thought your decision to believe in cultural relativism was interesting. The idea of everyone accepting a common guideline seems like a great idea. However, I'm not quite sure that is true, because while taking this quiz, I didn't get 100% rates of people agreeing with me. While for the most part our beliefs on morality is based on culture, I wouldn't say we are definitively cultural relativists.
ReplyDeleteI think you’re absolutely right when it comes to the question of the mother and her son. It certainly is a gray area of morality, where the intentions behind the action are just as important to consider as his actual ability to carry out his promise. If he absolutely meant to visit his mother every week, then I don’t see a problem in him saying he would. And if his only intention was to ease her pain in her last moments, then I see that as alright as well. However, there is still an uncomfortable feeling associated with breaking a promise, but it’s difficult to call it immoral outright because of the situation. It definitely classifies as a gray area.
ReplyDeleteSpencer,
ReplyDeleteI believe in cultural relativism to an extent. Like Asa said a great deal of morality is based on cultural expectation and teaching but I also think this relativist idea is severely limited by and individual's upbringing and beliefs. For instance, Preet has never had a cat and wouldn't see something very wrong with someone eating one as it is a common practice in some parts of the world. I, on the other hand, have raised my cat from a kitten and am absolutely horrified by the idea of someone eating their cat.
I also believe in cultural relativism and I felt the exact same way about the mother and son questions and the cat question. I never really thought of any morality being born into us before I read this. The example of a mother nurturing her baby off of instinct and how this happens in all animals is a great example. I agree that this suggests some sort of moral connection being born into all of us.
ReplyDeleteI have thought quite a bit today about the morality of humanity and it's relationship to culture, religion, and facts. I like how you described cultural relativism, and I agree with the idea that it stems from what we've been taught as commonly right and wrong, but within our own enviroment. Our enviroments are not the same across the country nor across the world, but those of us w/ the same or similar enviroments tend to have similar opinions of morality. You also mentioned a god/higher power which may determine the code that we live by, I recognize this reasoning of your rational mind wanting to dismiss the idea of a higher power when there is no definitive proof one exists. This is where the subjective part of relativism definitely comes in. I agree there is a grey area in the act of Carl lying to his dying mother. You made a valid point that he may have been trying to give his mother some last moments of happiness before she died, but I struggle with this lie no matter his reasoning. I feel it could be morally more acceptable if he made the promise with the intention of going and falling short of his promise, but blatantly lying with no intention of ever going I really find repulsive. Especially if there is an afterlife, Carl will have hurt his mother and himself.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that there is no scientific prove that there is a connection between god and morals is irrelevant towards understanding morality. Morals are not established by God but rather by the church and the biblical texts throughout history. I am a religious person and I believe in God but I also keep an open mind towards atheist sentiments. One thing that I have concluded is that regardless of whether you believe in God or not you cannot deny the trememdous impact religious institutions and texts have had on defining and maintaining human morals.
ReplyDeleteYour second point on how some morality is given by nature is flawed because basic motherly instincts are encoded in DNA. This theory is a major theme in evolutionary psychology and it is very well studied. Morality is seperate from basic instinct because morality is defined by the environment you live in not by your genetic code.
Cherie,
DeleteThe reason I brought up god in the morality discussion was to present the fact that accepting absolute realism infers that there an objective set of morals that exist somewhere and are independent of human existence. I interpret this to mean that for there to be extreme realism there must be a higher power that determines what is right and wrong.