Ethics class 1
Absolutism
definition: there exist absolute values; values do not vary from person to person or culture to culture; there is an objective morality.
caveat: a culture may be wrong about a value; e.g., Plato’s example: a culture may think killing strangers is alright, but that doesn’t make it right.
epistemic stance: even when we disagree now due to limited knowledge, there is an objective answer to moral questions; future generations may uncover it.
euthanasia example: should euthanasia be morally allowable? Absolutists would say there is an objective answer, even if we don’t know it yet; our intuitions or collective decisions may point toward it, but an objective answer exists.
Plato: sees an objective moral answer; if we lack current knowledge, we still must acknowledge there is an objective resolution.
Aristotle as realist and absolutist: he believes in objective values, but they are not grounded in a transcendent realm (e.g., not necessarily tied to God); rather they are based on human nature in general.
Kant (referred to here as Emmanuel Kant): another absolutist; holds that there are absolute moral values; his view in the eighteenth century anchors objective duties; moral law has a universal force.
relationship to human nature vs transcendence: the text emphasizes values can be grounded in human nature rather than in God or transcendent realms.
Relativism
position: moral values vary by culture or environment; there is no single objective standard across cultures.
anthropological genesis: early 20th-century anthropologists documented cultural differences and defended relativism: you should judge a culture by its own values.
Margaret Mead anecdote: claimed Samoa had looser sexual norms; later admitted the claim was not accurate and described it as a youthful work; she admitted lying about the Samoa findings.
environment shapes morality: in the tropics water scarcity may make certain restrictions morally salient (e.g., wasting water could be a sin), whereas in water-rich Scotland such restrictions may be less salient; environment influences what is considered moral.
link to the Sophists: relativism is linked to Sophist thought (not necessarily radical relativism, but close in spirit).
summary: most anthropologists are relativists in the sense that moral beliefs arise from and vary with specific cultures and environments.
Realism and Absolutism in Aristotle
Aristotle is described as a realist and an absolutist; he believes in objective values but not grounded in transcendent beings; rather they derive from human nature in general (shared human traits).
Subjectivism
Nietzsche as a subjectivist: moral truth claims are relative to individuals; there may be some sense of truth-value, but it is not universal or objective.
connection to postmodernism: Nietzsche is said to usher in postmodernism, the contemporary era in which these themes are prominent. The note mentions that postmodernism will be explained later.
Emotivism
two key figures: Ayer and Stevenson.
Ayer (G. E. Moore and logical positivism era context): statements about facts are either true or false; but statements about morality are not meaningful at all; moral claims express our feelings rather than describe facts.
Stevenson: builds on emotivism; argued there is no rational way to solve moral conflicts because moral disputes are about attitudes toward facts rather than objective truths.
historical note: Stevenson taught at Yale; he was denied tenure there for his claim; he had spent much of his career at the University of Michigan; the debate occurred in the context of post-WWII moral philosophy.
Historical and illustrative cases
The Melian Dialogue (Athens vs. Melos): Athenians demand obedience, threatening: you are either with us or against us; justice depends on power; the Melian council answers that justice is not universal but depends on equality of power; the Athenians retaliate violently, killing adult males and selling women and children into slavery. The speaker argues that justice comes “up only among equals”; Athens enforces its rule because it can.
Socrates’ trial and life:
Charges: not believing in the city’s gods (impiety) and corrupting the youth.
Athens’ political climate: the city’s religious and social norms; debate over what counts as belief in the gods; Socrates challenges conventional pieties and emphasizes rational discussion of divinity.
Socrates’ defense themes:
He denies atheism and argues for reverence toward divine matters; he emphasizes that if the gods are rational beings, then they know good and bad and would not do wrong.
He criticizes Homeric gods as morally flawed (examples: Aphrodite’s infidelity, Zeus’ misdeeds) to argue that the gods should be understood as virtuous and rational.
He often frames piety and virtue in terms of truth and justice rather than mere tradition.
The “divine sign” (daimonion): Socrates claims a divine inner voice warned him against certain actions; various interpretations exist about what this sign was or meant.
Meletus and the accusation of atheism: Socrates argues that he is not an atheist; he points out that truth and divine matters matter; his defense includes the claim that he asks others to examine him and to speak the truth.
Episodes Socrates cites in his life to illustrate his stance against injustice:
Refusing to arrest an innocent man when ordered by the Thirty (the regime that preceded the trial).
In wartime, when there was a law requiring the rescue of survivors from a battle, Socrates chose not to participate in prosecuting or coordinating a case against a captain who did not rescue survivors; he says he would not participate in actions that he believed would involve unjust conduct.
Purpose of Socrates’ life claims: to show that he would not commit injustice or disobey the law merely to please others; if the Thirty had prevailed, he might have been arrested otherwise.
The attorney’s and jury’s reaction: Socrates emphasizes that the accusers spoke without truth; he promises to present the truth, even if painful.
Philosophical context and interpretations:
Early Christians sometimes viewed Socrates as a prophet-like figure in the tradition of speaking with divine guidance.
Hegel’s view: conscience evolves historically; Homer’s heroes lack a developed sense of conscience; conscience appears with the evolution of human spirit.
Nietzsche’s critique: guilt is a Christian invention (and Nietzsche sometimes conflates Christian and Jewish frames); conscience and guilt are historically contingent rather than universal moral features.
A modern Princeton professor speculated that Socrates might have been schizophrenic due to hearing “the divine sign,” but this view is not widely accepted; the consensus rejects that interpretation.
Socrates’ cross-examination and final stance: He emphasizes the importance of truth and justice; he defends his life as a defense of truth against political expediency; he claims that not following injustice is consistent with his life mission.
Epicurus on politics (briefly mentioned): politics is a life of betrayal, where friends become rivals when entering political life; this is used to reflect on the moral complexity of public life.
Postscript and connections
The instructor notes that these positions and figures help classify philosophers into categories (absolutism, relativism, subjectivism, emotivism) and to place historical events (Melos, Socrates) within these frameworks.
The lecture foreshadows further exploration of postmodernism and related themes, indicating that the era we live in now has its own moral-philosophical framework that will be explained later.
Throughout, the thread emphasizes that moral questions often involve conflicts between intuitive judgments, cultural norms, rational argument, and historical context; the aim is to map these ideas to the positions on morality (absolutism, relativism, subjectivism, emotivism).