Cultural Relativism (Assignment #1)

Describe a situation in which there is a moral disagreement between cultures, and explain why you think this disagreement is evidence either for or against cultural relativism.

A situation where there is moral disagreement between cultures is the act of eating ones parents in one country compared to a burial service else were. Some places people eat their parents and it is seem to be a proper entombment but here it would be immoral and looked down at. Cultural relativism wouldn’t seem to work here because it would be seemingly in one place but not the other. The practice would be taken out of context and would not hold the same moral value in one place like it would the other.

“Higher” Pleasures better than “Lower” ones?

Blog about Mill’s claim that some pleasures – the “higher”, mostly mental pleasures that are unique to humans – are better than others – the “lower”, physical, animal pleasures. Is he right about this?

Mill talks about the unique pleasures as humans we experience that other animals can not. He brings it up as he reacts to a common objection to Utilitarianism, that promoting pleasures to gain overall happiness is not noble enough to define morals. Mill states that these pleasure humans experience are “higher” or “better” because only we can experience them and understand why it is good. That we should not be ashamed of them but realize it is what makes us human and above the animals. An animal cannot see the good it brings or warmth felt when being charitable. We as humans can and when we do we can easily say it is a “higher” pleasure that we exalt. Even though they are unique and can be considered “better” the other “lower” pleasures are satisfying as well. They may not be better but are enjoyable and we should strive for some sort of balance between obtaining the two and our moral code should promote the most of both it can.

Moral responsibility of our actions and Utilitarianism

To what extent are we morally responsible for the outcome of our actions? What does your answer to this question tell us about utilitarianism?

If one hold themselves up to a moral code then one must be responsible for all foreseen outcomes of ones action. For example if someone acts and their action hurts someone else knowingly then the action is morally wrong to commit. I emphasize knowingly because only if knowing that it will cause an immoral outcome can that person be blamed or held responsible because they knew the consequences and still went forth. If my action effects others and can be seen as immoral I am to blame if I knew it would effect them. If I did something and did not know anyone else would be hurt and only saw the good intention, responsibility for the “bad” could be argued. In this case Utilitarianism would be correct only if the person knew the outcomes effects on other happiness. If they did not know that they would be causing unhappiness then one cannot say he/she was morally out of line.

Morality from a Irrational God?

Can an irrational God, like the one I argued is necessitated by DCT, be moral?

In class we discussed how irrationality or being irrational means that the persons brain is not working the way it should. That there is something wrong because the norm is to question for reasons and think rational thoughts. So if one is not thinking rationally they could be considered “broken” or “crazy”. If God is “crazy” or irrational how would He understand morals or morality? To understand morals one must be reasonable or rational to put together why it is right and why something may be wrong. This means in DCT God is irrational and thus can not be moral. He does not have the rational to put morality together in His mind and acts irrationally and His actions can fall under immoral.

Assignment 2: Divine Command Theory

If Divine Command Theory is false, is it bad for religion? In other words, does it take something important away from the idea of God to say that he does not control morality?

Divine Command Theory sets up bases of morals within a religious group around whatever “God says so.” The people who follow those religious standards and believe what is, according to their religion, moral may change their life styles to adjust. To say then that God does not control morality and that He does not in fact decide what is right and wrong on any particular reason or fact then that religion would be completely undermined. The idea of the supreme being who tells and commands the way people should live would just be someone who has the “title” and maybe just abuses it because we think He also has the “power” or command. If what He says is not in fact just or moral how would the followers feel? They are just being robots or blind followers doing whatever their God says when the case is that their God does not even have the power to do so.