Student5.edited (4)
docx
School
County College of Morris *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
HJ
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by SuperHumanCrown14955
Surname 1
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Date
Philosophy of Human Nature- Jesse Prinz’s perspective
Prinz arguement for relativism
According to Jesse Prinz, morality is merely culturally entrenched. This means that the
sources of our moral inclinations are merely cultural, as there is nothing like moral
absolutism. The article by Jesse Prinz titled “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response”
argues in favor of moral relativism and supports the relativism theory of ethics that moral
judgments are based on the emotions that stem from social norms and culture
(Prinz, p6)
. As
such, Prinz contends cultural values and beliefs are responsible for personal morality and that
morality cannot be said to stem or be inherent in the natural world. Therefore, the article
rejects that there is absolute morality but rather accepts that morality is culturally inbound
because it discusses how morality has changed throughout time and how different cultures
have had different views on morality
(Prinz, p6)
. This means there is no absolute morality as
stated moral values are relative to time and circumstances, and therefore clashing moral
beliefs can be true.
Prinz is aware of the objectivists, as some may say moral variations is
greatly exaggerated. However, he uses what he calls "deny variation matters" to defend his
argument on moral relativism. Prinz's argument for morality relativism is described below.
Jesse Prinz creates two arguments in support of moral relativism that there is no absolute
morality but moral beliefs and practices are merely culturally inclined. The first argument in
support of moral relativism is that morals vary dramatically across time and space and that
different people have different views on morality
(Prinz, p6)
. He uses the hypothetical
situation in which he talks of the scenario of moral disagreement to introduce the idea of
relativism, that moral values are relative to time and circumstances. Here, the hypothetical
2
situation of moral disagreement points out that moral values are not absolute and universal in
society but rather ingrained with cultural beliefs and values. He supports the argument with a
request to consider cannibalism since, according to evidence, 34% of cultures are stated to
have practiced cannibalism
(Prinz, p7)
. In this view, Prinz highlights how there are
inconsistencies between what different groups of people regard as good or evil to support no
absolutism morality as there are variations in moral codes across cultures. As such, Prinz
brings the concept of variation to show how certain things that are considered evil are good to
some cultures. Therefore, he uses the argument on variation to state people do not share
moral values
(Prinz, p6)
. This makes Prinz refute the argument of moral objectivism.
Therefore, Prinz’s main argument is that morality is different for everybody; thus, there is no
absolute or universal morality, as moral values stem from what an individual believes based
on social norms and culture.
The second argument raised in support of moral relativism is that moral judgments are
based on emotions and hence vary from person to person. The subtitle “Emotions and
Inculcation” states ethics is based on emotions rather than reason, as there is a strong link
between moral values with emotional attitude and reasoning. Thus, no amount of reasoning
can inculcate morals
(Prinz, p7)
. Prinz uses the example of homosexuals and psychopaths to
show they are morally blind because they lack the emotional attitude to tell them their actions
are morally wrong. As such, he states that shame and disgust are the definite chief precursors
of moral judgment
(Prinz, p7)
. To explain his argument to support moral relativism and shun
moral objectivism, Prinz comes down to the level of the reader, who may not understand the
technicalities of philosophy, by giving an example of how a person may feel disgusted by
eating cow tongue but would not be ashamed of eating it if not a vegetarian. As a result, the
emotion of killing an innocent animal is wrong affects the moral judgment rather than the
person using logic and reason. This means that emotions remain the choice of correct moral
3
judgment rather than reasoning. Therefore, moral judgment is based on the emotional attitude
of the individuals, as reasoning or logic cannot tell us which facts are morally good or bad
because it is evaluatively neutral
(Prinz, p7)
. The arguments raised by Prinz support moral
relativism and work towards explaining that there is no absolute morality but rather based on
what the culture and emotional beliefs state of being right or wrong.
How Prinz defends his argument against an objection
Prinz defends his argument against the objection of moral relativism through critics of
what objectivists use as the basis of moral relativism. In what he calls denying variations
matters, Prinz states that objectivists say that morality varies across cultures, so according to
them, variations do not matter in determining morality
(Prinz, p8)
. They also say that people
share moral values; thus, moral principles are absolute or universal to all cultures, which
contradicts moral relativism. This shows Prinz is aware of the objection to his argument on
moral relativism to be merely culturally entrenched and thus criticizes objectivists’ views
with the analogy of moral theory and scientific theory.
How Prinz responds to this objection
Prinz responds to objectivists’ view of morality through comparison with scientific theory
and the arguments on infanticide. First, Prinz responds to objections to his moral relativism
by comparing the differences in morality with the differences in scientific theories. He states
that in science, not all theories that tend to explain a phenomenon are true, and similarly, in
morality, no basis or moral solutions in the form of theories inherent in the natural world are
the right ones
(Prinz, p8)
. Here, he uses this analogy to support morality being a culturally
conditioned response because scientific theories are subject to variation due to time and
circumstances. This is similar to moral theories because cultures tend to evolve with time;
thus no absolutism of morality. The article shows there is no correct scientific theory. Thus,
variations in scientific theory arise due to inadequate observations, poor instruments, and
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
4
research
(Prinz, p8)
. Similarly, in moral theory, there is no correct morality that can be
defined as doing good or bad varies from person to person. This analogy shows that morality
cannot be quantified as no measure of what is good or wrong, so it cannot be a basis for
defining what morality is. Here, Prinz uses the piercing argument of slavery and how it was
perpetuated despite improvement in science to support that the advances of scientific
observations over time did not affect how we view morality
(Prinz, p8)
. Therefore, we can
only base moral values based on what people culturally believe and not through mere
reasoning that there is a common way for all people to show moral values.
Objectivists state that people share moral values, but circumstances that people are in
bring about variations in determining what is right or wrong. As such, moral variations stated
by Prinz are greatly exaggerated
(Prinz, p7)
. According to Prinz, objectivists' reasoning is
clumsy and, as a result, use the case of infanticide to respond to this objection. He states that
if people share moral values and variations are exaggerated, why should we believe that
Inuits practiced infanticide as the right solution to resource scarcity in the tundra
(Prinz, p7)
?
This shows that we cannot justify infanticide used by Inuits in moral reasoning but due to
logical reasoning. As such, we cannot share moral values and justify the Inuit's practice of
infanticide since moral values vary from person to person
(Prinz, p7)
. These differences in
how we can arrive at moral judgment make Prinz criticize the common arguments posed in
objectivists' morality arguments.
Are you convinced by Prinz's response to this objection?
In my opinion, I think Prinz successfully expressed his response to objection and refuted
the objectivist’s theory and views on his morality relativism. Therefore, I am convinced with
his response to objections because Prinz's arguments against what is stated in denying
variations matters have a strong appeal to the reader's logic.
Prinz refutes the objections to
his moral stance on cultural values through the analogy of moral theory and scientific theories
5
(Prinz, p9)
. He creatively and critically states that as scientific theories are subject to change
over time and place, moral values are also subject to change from one person to another. This
is also the subject of how cultures evolve because people tend to inbound their moral values
with their cultures since emotions that define morality are culturally entrenched. This
comparison makes the reader appeal to logic that there is no absolutism morality. This
example of how Prinz responds to objectivists' view of morality relativism shows that Prinz
addresses the objection head-on and explains them fully for the reader to understand and
appeal to logic
(Prinz, p6)
. He then refutes the allegations from the objectivists with strong
counter-arguments that have a logical sense to make the reader able to understand the
reasoning he uses on the objections raised.
He has used ethos commendably and
appropriately to strengthen his own arguments against objections that create a rational
connection to the reader's mind. Therefore, I think Prinz has praiseworthy deductive
reasoning skills that make the reader able to see how he creatively responded to the objection.
As such, I am convinced by the responses that he postulates in defense of his moral relativism
and counter-arguments to the objections.
6
Works Cited
Prinz, Jesse. "Morality is a culturally conditioned response."
Philosophy Now
82 (2011): 6-9.
philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response.
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