James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - Article Example

A. James Rachels “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” 1. What is cultural relativism? Cultural relativism is the idea that each culture has its own code and within that code, folkway determines what is right, and wrong according to ethnic groups, lineage and objectivity. There is no real truth except for the truth that is created among cultures and there is no way to measure moral or ethical truth in the manner of superiority or inferiority. Objectivity is in the eye of the folkway or ancestor. 2. What is the Cultural Difference Argument, and on what ground does Rachels criticize it? The cultural difference argument states that cultural relativism is a theory that needs to be looked at on an analytic basis due to its plausible and implausible outcomes. The cultural outcomes can be argued using facts about a particular culture, creating an argument that has an end result. But the argument itself is relative because it focuses on each culture having its own moral code which is not objective because opinions are formed based on experience and opinions are in themselves subjective and subject to different cultures. 3. Rachels argues that cultural relativism has three unacceptable consequences. What are they? Rachels argues that cultural relativism has three unacceptable consequences and they are that we can’t feel superior to a different culture, we can question the moral conduct of our culture upfront by asking whether one thing is right, or wrong and then stick to that response and risked being looked down upon and finally, we begin to doubt whether progress is possible, necessary, and even important through venues such as social reform. B. Kant “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative” 1. What does Kant mean by saying that a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification? He means that a good will is the only thing that can’t be measured by how much one does or does not do. Intelligence, talent, courage and diligence are all good things but are useless unless you have good character or will. If you have a positive desire to do and use your talents, they what you produce will be out of good, and not used incorrectly. We are all given power, and this power can be put to good use, or bad use but it is still power. Good will allows the power to be put essentially to good use. 2. When does an action have moral worth? An action has moral worth when it is done for the sake of duty and not for the sake of conforming to duty. This means that if we do something, we should do it for the sake of duty or right.not for the sake of sympathy. 3. What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative? A hypothetical imperative is the action that one performs that is only good as a means to something else. It is conditional which means it depends on something or someone else in order to reach an objective. A categorical imperative is good in itself. When there is a categorical imperative, one has the hopes that his actions will become law or will stick as a principal. It is unconditional and does not depend on anything to reach an objective. It does not in itself have an objective. It is not concerned with consequences but just seeks to do what is morally correct and follows a law that should be inherently placed. C. Mary Anne Warren “The Moral Status of Abortion” 1. Explain the two senses of “human being” that Noonan and other opponents of abortion confuse. The two senses of “human being” being referred is the moral sense and the genetic sense. The moral sense deals with the human having the ability to reason and has human rights. The genetic sense deals with a human being part of a specific code that makes it human and not any other species. What connection, if any, is there between the senses? The connection could be the fact that if anything is genetically human, it is also morally human. If humans have the ability to reason, and know right from wrong, and have moral rights, then they are classified as genetically human because this is what seems to scientifically set humans apart from other species. 2. According to Warren, what are the five characteristics that are central to the concept of personhood? The five characteristics that are central to the concept of personhood are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-concept. 3. In the normal course of events, a fetus will ultimately develop into a person with a right to life; it is thus a potential person. Explain the example that Warren uses to argue that potential persons do not have a significant right to life. A potential person is someone who undergoes development for the possibility of becoming a person. It can “potentially” be a person in the future therefore possessing the rights to life. However, the woman who decides to have an abortion also has a right because she IS human and has a right to choose what to do with her child; when this comes into conflict, the woman wins. Because a fetus does not resemble a person during the time it could be aborted, it has no significant right to life, only a high probability of becoming a person if they are not terminated. Warren compared a scientist’s ability to replicate or leave the scene to a woman’s ability to keep the baby or abort. Both potential humans had high probability but in essence, both the scientist and the woman had the choice to “leave” the scene, stopping the world from receiving more humans. D. Aristotle “Happiness, Function, and Virtue” 1. What are some of the ordinary views of good or happiness that people have? Happiness lies in fulfilling the functions of being a human being. What does Aristotle have to say about them? He says that to live well or do well is the same thing as experiencing happiness. He also mentions the relativeness of happiness and how some see it as a visible and palpable thing. Others see happiness as circumstantial, if you are sick, it is attributed to health, if you are poor, it is attributed to wealth. Happiness is relative and is different for a common person and also a philosopher. 2. Why is happiness the supreme or highest good? Happiness is the supreme or highest good because everything is essentially aimed at something good. So regardless of if you are doing something without the “good” intention, the end result would be something good. 3. What is the connection between function and happiness? What other factors influence human happiness? The factors which influence human happiness varies from person to person. Every person will find happiness in different things and therefore, call their observation and outcome of their behavior “happy”. Some of the factors are health, wealth, power, education, and wisdom. E. Rosalind Hursthouse “Virtue Theory and Abortion” 1. According to Hursthouse, what is a virtue, and what makes an action right? A virtue is a “right” action and what makes an action right is the characteristics at hand and the end goal. If the action is tied to a moral or principle, if it promotes a right consequence, and considers what the virtuous person do in the same situation. then it is right. 2. Why would it be a mistake to see abortion as comparable to having a haircut or an appendectomy? Cutting off the life of a fetus is in essence ending a life. It is premature termination of a new human life. It is a serious matter. When you abort, you end the life. When you cut hair or have an appendectomy, you are not removing a life but only removing what was not “functioning” or not needed. 3. In what way does virtue ethics extend the moral issues surrounding abortion to boys and men? Virtue ethics extend the moral issues surrounding aborting to boys and men by putting into perspective what a virtuous man would do in a certain situation. The couple would think rationally and logically and not act irresponsibly if they do not want pregnancy to occur. They would help their partner and support their partner to ensure the best outcome. F. John Stuart Mill “Utilitarianism” 1. What is Mill’s test for distinguishing higher pleasures from lower pleasures? 2. What is Mill’s proof of the principle of utility? Mill’s proof of the principle of utility is whether what is attainable is useful or not. Can you use what it is you are trying to attain? How did he try to establish that the only thing that people desire is happiness? He tried to establish that the only thing that people desire is happiness by proving and finding evidence of people and their desire for only good things, pleasureable things and things that are absent free. This is seen through the will of the person and their desire to please themselves. 3. What is Mill’s final definition of right and wrong, and how does it differ from his initial statement of the utilitarian doctrine? Mill’s final definition of right and wrong is that right and wrong is connected to Justice and has to do with morality. Right and wrong are not determined only by our faculties but also by our morals and beliefs. G. Tibor R. Machan “Do Animals Have Rights?” 1. What is it to have a right, according to Machan? What is the argument for extending rights to animals? According to Machan, to have a right is to have liberty, the right to life, and the right to own property. The argument for extending rights to animals is that humans are non-moral agents therefore, do not have the ability to discern right from wrong. 2. Explain why, according to Machan, human beings may use animals for their own purposes. Because humans have rights that cover morals and ethics, they are able to determine to what capacity they will use those rights. 3. Why are human rights important? How does the answer to this question imply that there is no room for animal rights? Human rights are important because it ascribes and gives purpose to each person. It also creates a reason for living in the moral life created by government and the world. It implies that there is no room for animal rights because trying to balance the two would constitute an incomprehensible challenge. Giving rights to humans is like building a third story without a base; it’s impossible to manage. It can be thought up, but it would be a fallacy. H. Holmes Rolston III “Respect for Life” 1. According to Holmes Rolston, what makes plants different from rivers or stones? In what way are they more than a mere physical process? Plants, unlike rivers and stones are self-actualizing and can produce more of its kind. They repair injuries and move water and nutrients to purposeful parts of their bodies. Rivers and stones are neither matter nor energy that can be neither created nor destroyed. One however can be transformed into another. Plants are matter and create energy. They are self-actualizing and they are a complex system that can self-regulate, produce, and exist. Plants poses information used to create and pass on energy whereas rivers and rocks do not. 2. Rolston believes that a plant but not a guided missel has “good-of-its kind.” Explain what he means. When Rolston says that a plant, not a guided missel has “good-of-its kind’ he is saying that a plant has genes that is the secret to life. These genes help dictate what will happen to the plant and how they will react upon necessity. Guided missels do not have this gene because they are not focused in on a goal. Plants perform what they need to perform for their “sake” or “good of its kind”. 3. According to Rolston, how wound Singer look at sand dollars? He would say that the sand dollar does not “count” and therefore, a “respect for life” is not necessary. In order to save such things, finding someone who actually cares would be the new task. Because the sand dollars would be lower than oysters and the like, they would not really “count” or be counted as living. Sand Dollars would only be good if they can be used for the higher beings, or beings that actually do “count”. H. Gerald Dworkin “Paternalism” 1. What is the difference between “pure” and “impure” paternalism? The difference between pure and impure paternalism is that the pure paternalism includes the people who’s freedom is restricted is identical to the people who benefits are intended to promote those who are restricting them. Impure paternalism is protecting a person or a people the find that the only way to do so is to restrict the freedom of others except for those who benefit. 2. Why, according to Dworkin, does utilitarianism provide a presumption-but not an absolute prohibition-against interference with personal conduct? Dworkin believes that utilitarianism provides and assumption and not an absolute because people have their autonomous rights and can’t be always hinged on what the world expects of them. They know themselves and their interests best and prohibiting or outlawing an outside agent to “protect” the person does not keep the person from engaging in what their interest may be. A person’s way of laying out their existence is not the best because it is what it is, it’s the best because the person has chosen to make it his own. 3. What justifies parental paternalism, and what limits the exercise of such parental power? The thing that justifies paretnal paternalism is the realization that the child will choose his path regardless. The hope is that he choose the path that is most wise and lead him into success. Once he chooses his path, he will hopefully recognize the purpose of the parental paternalism and make it true not because people say it is true or right, but because he makes it his own and experiences the truth from it. The future orientated consent is what is at large. If the child eventually realizes the purpose for the guidance, they will come to welcome the guidance. I. John Corvino “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex?” 1. Why does one need a strong reason to deny a sexual relationship to Tommy and Jim? One needs a strong reason to deny a sexual relationship to Tommy and Jim because everything pointing to Tommy and Jim fall under what a heterosexual couple would do and feel. They are committed, they love each other, and they are willing to communicate and grow. If this does not make up the basis for any serious relationship, then one needs to look at whether a reason to not is stronger than a reason to. 2. What are the five possible meanings of “unnatural” that Corvino discusses? Five possible meanings of unnatural are unusual, abnormal, not practiced by other animals, not innate, and violates the purpose of the organs. 3. How does he respond to the argument that homosexuality threatens children? Carvino says that the argument and response is two fold. The first assumption is that the homosexual is a child molester but this cannot be proven to be true. The second assumption is that children who are around homosexuals become homosexuals. J. Judith Jarvis Thompson “A Defense of Abortion” 1. Explain the example of being kidnapped and plugged into the violinist. How does Thompson use it to challenge the standard anti-abortion view? The violinist metaphor is putting yourself in the position of someone who has to have an abortion due to some kind of ailment. Without this abortion, they will not survive and will not be able to live the best life possible. The challenge is the mention of the unwanted or unexpected pregnancies due to unprotected sex or rape. The example is beckoning whether abortion should be allowed in such strenuous circumstances. He used the violist as an example because the uncomfortableness of the instrument, and noise creats an uncomfortable environment such as an unwanted pregnancy. 2. What is the case of Jones, Smith, and the coat intended to show? The case of Jones, Smith and the coat is intended to show that even though Jones may need the coat, the coat belongs to Smith. So though the baby could live, and be protected and loved, the body the baby is inside essentially belongs to the mother and the mother owns her own body. She has a right to her body just as Smith has a right to his coat and all of its provisions to keep him safe, healthy and happy. 3. What is the difference between a Good Samaritan and a Minimally Decent Samaritan? How does this distinction fit into Thompson’s defense of abortion? The difference between a good Samaritan and a minimally decent Samaritan is that the good Samaritan went out of his way putting himself in jeopardy and at risk. It was at his own cost. Whereas the minimally decent Samaritan choose to be neutral and does nothing about a situation, keeping safe and not putting themselves in harms way…but not helping either. This means that they didn’t just do nothing, but they made a conscious effort to do nothing, so they were the least possibly descent. K. Mylan Engel, Jr. “Why You Are Committed to the Immorality of Eating Meat 1. What is Engel’s basic argumentative strategy and how does it differ from that of Peter Singer? Engel’s basic argumentative strategy is using what the reader believes to create his argument. So instead of coming up with a theory, he is allowing the readers theory to be manifested into his own thought process and justifications. Singer believes that animals should have equal consideration on utilitarian grounds. Engel’s argument is neutral and either contains the beliefs of epothocentricism and biocentric worldviews. 2. What impact does the meat industry have on the environment? The meat industry is considered animal agriculture and Mylan claims that it is wasteful, inefficient, and environmentally devastating as a means of food production. 3. What is the main evidence that meat consumption is not necessary for human survival? The main evidence that mean consumption is not necessary for human survival is the evidence pointing towards the very successful people such as athletes and their desire to be vegetarian and yet strive and flourish. Another bit of evidence is that the consumption of mean can destroy a life instead of better it. This is seen through the diseases that people contract while taking in the mean they consume. People who consume less meat have a higher rate of living healthily. The best heart healthy diet is pure vegetarian, and it brings down the risk of cancer if you have a low-fat vegetarian diet. Works Cited Read More