HW #3 ethics

.docx

School

Rollins College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

108

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by MajorDiscoveryStork6

Report
Ella Laboda HW #3 (a) POPULARITY of ECR (Ethical Cultural Relativism). Though he's ultimately showing deep flaws in this position, why/how does Rachels suggest it's so very popular, at first glance? Before this class, when you heard the phrase 'ethical cultural relativism,' pick ONE ASPECT he identifies that might have sounded very ethically positive to you, at surface level. Rachels suggests that ECR is popular because it seems to offer a way to promote tolerance and respect for other cultures. Before this class, one aspect that might have sounded ethically positive to me at surface level is that ECR recognizes and values cultural diversity, and does not impose one's own culture's values on others. (b) DIAGRAM THE **EXACT** LOGICAL ARGUMENT AT THE HEART OF ECR. Go to the section where Rachels literally diagrams the argument at the heart of the ECRelativism position: he calls the heart of it 'the Cultural Differences Argument/CDA'. He starts with wordier sentences, then boils it down to the simplest format, which has just 2 parts: the PREMISE, and the CONCLUSION. Treat this as something like a clean, mathematical equation, because a logical inference is involved, here: the PREMISE either **IS** sufficient to support the CONCLUSION, or it **ISN'T**- there's no in-between. Write out, directly, in your post: the PREMISE = ___________ (as he has it written), & CONCLUSION = _______________ (as he has it written). You're showing me, here, that you're clear on what each statement IS, before we analyze it further.
The PREMISE of the Cultural Differences Argument (CDA) as written by Rachels is different cultures have different moral codes. The CONCLUSION of the CDA as written by Rachels is: Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. (c) IDENTIFY THE REASON WHY THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY/why the Conclusion does not follow, necessarily, from the Premise. For an argument to be logically valid/to hold, the CONCLUSION ***must*** logically follow from the PREMISE. If not, the argument is FALLACIOUS/A FALLACY. Explain in your own words how/why the CONCLUSION of the CDA does NOT follow from the PREMISE. Again: the PREMISE either **IS** sufficient to support the CONCLUSION, or it **ISN'T**- there's no in-between. Just say, in your own words, WHY the conclusion does NOT follow from the premise (i.e., what goes wrong, here, logically speaking, with the reasoning). The reason why the CDA is a logical fallacy is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. The fact that different cultures have different moral codes does not necessarily mean that there is no objective truth in morality. The premise only shows that different cultures have different moral codes, but it does not prove that there is no objective truth in morality. (d) zoom back out on the position: what does this now make you think of Ethical Cultural Relativism as a position? Do you have more sympathies for it, or for the other end of the 'continuum of moral truths' we've been discussing: the 'Ethical Objectivism' position-? EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING. After analyzing the flaws in the CDA, I am less sympathetic to ECR as a position. The fact that the CDA is a logical fallacy undermines the entire premise of ECR. Instead, I find
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help