Debate on Moral Relativism vs. Universalism and the Three Domains of Morality

Cultural Specificity and the Three Domains of Morality

  • Results of University Studies in Brazil:

    • Research conducted on college students at a university in Brazil indicates that individuals judge actions based on matters of social convention and personal preference.
    • Socioeconomic status plays a role in how communities memorialize stances towards specific actions.

  • The Three Major Moral Domains:

    • Autonomy:
      • Commonly found in individualistic communities.
      • Focuses on the individual's right to decide what is right or wrong.
      • Examples include discussions on hunting and general human rights.
    • Community (Duty):
      • Commonly found in collectivist communities.
      • Focuses on the idea of duty and taking care of others.
      • Examples include taking care of parents in old age or deciding whether to live with or allow parents to move in after one leaves college.
    • Divinity:
      • Commonly found in traditional communities.
      • Focuses on security, sacredness, and synchronicity.
      • Religion is a primary factor in this domain.

  • Moral Foundations and Criticisms:

    • Arguments often focus on prosociality as the "grand rounding factor" of morality.
    • However, prosociality often fails to cover the domain of "disgusting but harmless" actions studied in moral research.
    • Notable differences exist between cultural groups regarding traditional values such as loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

Rebuttal Against Moral Relativism

  • The "Nothing Sandwich" Argument:

    • Hazem argues that providing evidence of variation in practices, customs, and applications does not constitute evidence of different moral foundations.
    • He claims that the previous presentation provided a "nothing sandwich" because it failed to show a health chart with genuinely distinct moral foundations.

  • The Problem of Relativism and Moral Extremes:

    • If all moral claims are relative to a culture, then a culture that believes it is perfectly moral to "eat babies for breakfast" cannot be condemned by an outsider.
    • Under a relativistic stance, the most an outsider could say is that the behavior is "different" or "not how things go in my culture," but they could not say it is "wrong."

  • Shared Moral Core:

    • Hazem suggests that the gut reaction of horror toward eating babies proves a "shared moral core" that exists beyond cultural boundaries.
    • He compares moral claims to traffic laws: if morality were cultural, saying "we eat babies" should cause no more shock than saying "in my culture, we drive on the left."
    • The intense emotional response elicited by the baby-eating example proves that certain actions are inherently unacceptable across all cultures.

  • Historical Anecdote: King Darius and the Greeks vs. the Galatians:

    • Persian King Darius questioned Greek historians on what it would take for them to eat their dead fathers; the Greeks were horrified as they practiced burning the dead.
    • Darius then asked the Galatians (an Indian tribe) what it would take for them to burn their dead fathers; they were equally shocked because they practiced eating their fathers to honor them.
    • The Core Logic: While the practices (burning vs. eating) were opposite, the underlying moral foundation—honoring the deceased father—was identical. This suggests everyone aims for the same moral goal even if their factual applications differ.

Scientific Evidence for Universal Social Cognition

  • Universal Human Emotions:

    • Basic human emotions and social cognitions are argued to be universal and hardwired into the brain's network of structures.

  • The Charlie Palms Study (20202020):

    • A global-scale study conducted in 20202020 involving approximately 70,00070,000 participants (described as species of events) across 4242 countries.
    • Scenario: Participants were asked whether they would kill one person to save five people, or kill five people to save one person.
    • Results: The majority of people (81%81\%\text{ around the globe}) agreed that they would prefer to kill one person to save five.
    • Implication: This proves that the principle of maximizing the number of lives saved is not a niche Western concept (Individualistic vs. Eastern/Socially oriented), but a universal moral preference.
    • The speaker argues that if culture ruled morality entirely, the results would show person-specific or culture-specific explanations rather than an objective, overwhelming majority of 81%81\%.

Questions & Discussion

  • Question from Team 2 (on the Baby-Eating Example):

    • Question: "If one culture considers it moral to eat a baby, but everyone else thinks it's immoral, doesn't that show there is a difference in morality? Doesn't it show that not everyone is going to think the same way?"
    • Hazem's Response: Hazem clarifies that the "difference" is merely an interpretation or variation on the surface. He pushes the opponent to define their stance: "On what stance can you say this is bad?" If morality is purely relative, an individual cannot personally say it is "bad" in an objective sense. He asks what foundation they use to claim killing babies is bad.

  • The Definition of Universalism:

    • Question: "What do you guys consider the universalism? Are you saying majority or everyone?"
    • Hazem's Response: He specifies that universalism refers to the "vast, vast majority" and the underlying foundations that drive those shared sentiments.