Questions & explanations
1. Can a person consistently hold both moral relativism and expressivism? Explain why or why not.
Some philosophers think they are compatible, others not. A person could hold both by saying that moral truth is relative to a culture (relativism) and that moral language expresses attitudes (expressivism). But there is a tension: relativism treats moral statements as truth-apt (true or false within a culture), while expressivism says they are not truth-apt at all. To be consistent, one might adopt a version of relativism that says moral statements are true or false only relative to a framework, and combine it with expressivism about the nature of moral judgments. However, many argue that if moral statements are not truth-apt, then relativism's claim that they are true relative to a culture is meaningless. So it is a debated issue.
2. If expressivism is true, can a moral relativist still say 'slavery is wrong in our culture'?
Yes, a moral relativist can say that because they think moral truth is relative to a culture. But if expressivism is true, saying 'slavery is wrong' just expresses disapproval, not a fact. So the relativist's statement would be an expression of their culture's attitude, not a claim about objective truth. The two views can work together: relativism says moral truth is culture-relative, and expressivism says moral language expresses attitudes. So 'slavery is wrong in our culture' expresses the speaker's disapproval, which matches their culture's norm. But some philosophers think they conflict because relativism still treats moral statements as truth-apt (true or false), while expressivism denies that.
3. If moral relativism says each culture's morality is right for them, can we ever say a society has become morally better over time?
Under moral relativism, 'moral progress' is tricky because there is no universal standard to measure improvement. A relativist would say that a society can change its moral rules, but whether that change is 'progress' depends on the society's own values. For example, if a culture once allowed slavery but later banned it, that change might be seen as progress by that culture's current standards. However, a relativist cannot claim that this change is objectively better for all societies. Some argue that moral progress is possible within a culture if it better meets its own goals, like reducing suffering. But without a universal yardstick, the idea of global moral progress is hard to defend.
4. How does MacIntyre's view differ from relativism on the possibility of moral progress?
Relativism often denies moral progress because there is no universal standard to measure improvement. What one culture sees as progress, another might see as decline. MacIntyre, however, believes moral progress is possible within and between traditions. A tradition can solve its own internal problems and incorporate insights from other traditions, leading to a better moral understanding. For example, a tradition that once accepted slavery might later reject it through rational reflection. This is progress by its own standards. Relativism would say the earlier view was right for its time, so no progress. MacIntyre offers a middle path: progress is tradition-relative but still real.
5. What does it mean for a moral relativist to tolerate a practice they personally find wrong?
For a moral relativist, tolerance means accepting that a practice may be right within another culture's moral framework, even if it conflicts with their own personal values. However, this creates a problem: if relativism says all moral views are equally valid, then intolerant cultures are also 'right' within their own context. This challenges the relativist to explain why they should promote tolerance at all, since tolerance itself is not universally required. Some relativists argue that tolerance is a practical necessity for peaceful coexistence, not a moral absolute. Others admit that relativism cannot consistently condemn intolerance, which is a major criticism of the view.
6. What is Rawls' main fairness objection to consequentialism?
Rawls argues that consequentialism can allow unfair distributions of benefits and burdens if it leads to a greater total good. For example, slavery might be justified if it makes enough other people happy. Rawls says justice requires that basic rights and opportunities be equal for everyone, not traded for overall happiness. He proposes the 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment: people designing society without knowing their own position would choose fair rules. Consequentialists reply that long-term consequences, including effects on trust and stability, often rule out such unfairness. They also argue that fairness itself can be seen as a consequence we should maximize.
7. Give an example where moral relativism and expressivism give different explanations of the same moral statement.
Consider the statement 'Honor killings are wrong'. A moral relativist would say this statement is true in cultures that condemn honor killings, but false in cultures that accept them. An expressivist would say the statement expresses the speaker's strong disapproval of honor killings, and it is not a claim that can be true or false. So relativism focuses on truth relative to a culture, while expressivism focuses on the speaker's attitude. In a culture that accepts honor killings, a relativist would say the statement is false for that culture, but an expressivist would say it just expresses a different attitude. Thus, they explain the same utterance in different ways.
8. Some people say punishment should make the criminal suffer as much as their victim did. Why would a consequentialist disagree?
A consequentialist would disagree because making the criminal suffer doesn't undo the victim's pain and might not prevent future crime. It could even make society more violent by encouraging revenge. The goal of punishment should be to increase overall well-being, not to balance suffering. If harsh punishment doesn't deter or rehabilitate, it just adds more pain without benefit. Consequentialists prefer punishments that reduce crime, like rehabilitation or community service. They argue that focusing on making criminals suffer is wasteful and cruel. Critics say it is fair and gives victims closure. Consequentialists reply that we should look forward, not backward.
9. What does Gauthier's bargaining theory say about how people should act in cooperative situations?
Gauthier's bargaining theory says that when people cooperate, they should agree on a fair deal that benefits everyone. He thinks that rational people will choose to follow rules that give each person a fair share of the benefits. This idea is called 'constrained maximization.' It means that instead of always trying to get the most for yourself, you sometimes limit your own gain to keep the cooperation going. For example, if two people are dividing a pizza, they might agree to split it equally even if one could take more. This way, both are better off than if they fought. Gauthier believes that following such fair rules is actually in your own long-term interest.
10. How would a consequentialist argue that punishment should focus on deterrence (stopping future crime) rather than revenge?
A consequentialist would say punishment should aim to reduce future crime, not to get back at the criminal. Deterrence works by making people afraid of the consequences, so they choose not to commit crimes. This increases overall happiness by preventing harm to victims. Revenge, on the other hand, doesn't prevent future crime and might even increase anger and violence. Consequentialists also consider rehabilitation, which changes criminals so they don't reoffend. They argue that punishment should be only as harsh as needed to deter. Critics say this could punish innocent people if it deters others. Consequentialists reply that we must be careful not to do that.
11. Can a person be blamed for having a bad character if it was caused by bad upbringing?
This is a difficult question. Some virtue ethicists say that if a person had no chance to develop good character because of a terrible upbringing, then it is not fair to blame them fully. However, they might still be dangerous, so society may need to protect itself. Other virtue ethicists say that adults have some responsibility to improve their character, even if they had a bad start. They argue that we can always try to change, and that effort matters. So blame might be reduced but not completely removed. The key is that virtue ethics acknowledges the role of luck but still holds people accountable for their current character and efforts to improve.
12. What is the difference between a consequentialist approach that values only sentient beings and one that values all living things (ecocentrism)?
A sentientist approach cares only about beings that can feel pleasure or pain, like animals and humans. An ecocentric approach values all living things, including plants and ecosystems, even if they don't feel anything. For example, an ecocentric consequentialist might say we should protect a forest because it is a living system, not just because of the animals in it. Sentientists would only care about the forest if it helps sentient beings. Ecocentrists might argue that ecosystems have value in themselves. Sentientists reply that without feeling, there is no well-being to consider. Both agree we should protect nature, but for different reasons.