Reference no: EM133244895

Assignment - Culture and Morality Application Paper

Instructor Swartwood - Background - In our look at Cultural Relativism (also known as Metaethical Moral Relativism), we saw that the fact that cultures disagree about what's right and wrong does not imply that there is no objective truth of the matter about what's right and wrong. So, the existence of moral disagreement between cultures doesn't give us reason to believe that Metaethical Moral Relativism is true. We also looked at other problems for Metaethical Moral Relativism and the argument for it. Because of these problems, many moral philosophers opt for an alternative view: moral realism. Moral realism (also known as Moral Objectivism) is the view that there are at least some objective moral truths - things that are right or wrong regardless of how anyone thinks or feels about them.

Moral Realism and Cultural Relativism are thus two totally different views: if one is true, then the other is false. The question for you is: which do you think is more plausible, and why? Given all the problems with Cultural Relativism, shouldn't we embrace Moral Realism?

You'll be examining this by addressing a scenario involving cases you've already looked at:

Jihoon and Eric: It is 2016, and Ji-hoon and Eric are colleagues at the local Humane Society in Springfield USA. They both love animals, but they've recently had a disagreement about how to look at the treatment of animals in other countries. Ji-hoon, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea, has recently been horrified by the fact that some South Koreans eat dogs. She recoils at the dogs she sees in pictures from markets, where they're sold as meat for a popular summer dish. Her colleague Eric, whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from Europe in the 19th Century, sees nothing wrong with the South Korean practice.

"I don't see what the big deal is," Eric says. "In America we view dogs as pets, so Americans see the dog meat markets as wrong. But many South Koreans see them as a meat animal, much as Americans see pigs, cows, and chickens. I don't think we can criticize South Koreans who eat dog meat, because it's accepted by their culture just as eating pigs and cows is here. It's kind of like the differences in how people care for their elders. I know that you've said your family has worked hard to ensure your grandma can live with you when she's no longer independent, because that's something your parents value and think they have a duty to do. But I, like many Americans, wouldn't think twice about putting my parents in a nursing home, because I definitely don't want them living with me! I know people from some other cultures would view that as wrong, but I don't care. What's right for them is different than what's right for me, because our cultures have different standards."

After hearing Eric's diatribe, Ji-hoon escapes to the solitude of the kitten room. Between bites and purrs from the adorable little fuzzballs, she thinks about how to respond to Eric. Is his attitude towards cultural differences plausible?

(Note: recent developments have resulted in some changes to the practices and attitudes South Koreans have towards dog meat. For this paper, imagine you were discussing the issue back in 2016, when the issue was pretty contentious.)

Instructions - In no more than 2 double-spaced pages, write a letter from Ji-hoon to Eric that explains the following 4 things (clearly, precisely, and in your own words):

1. Explain the difference between Moral Realism, on the one hand, and Cultural Relativism, on the other. An excellent paper will use illustrative examples (with the features described in Doing Practical Ethics Chapter 2) to illustrate each idea.

2. Describe what each view (MR and CR) implies about the moral disagreements Eric mentions (disagreements about whether it's moral to eat dog meat and whether it's moral to put elders in nursing homes).

3. Explain which view (MR and CR) you believe is more plausible, being sure to justify your answer. An excellent paper will give a counterexample (using the skills from Chapter 3 of Doing Practical Ethics) to support their position. For instance, if you defend MR, you should provide a counterexample to CR. If you defend CR, you should provide a counterexample to MR. (Note: if you did the activities and readings carefully, it should be pretty hard to defend CR. If you do decide to defend CR, you will need to address all the objections to it that have been raised in the assigned materials. That would be pretty hard!)

4. Summarize in a brief paragraph what your conclusions in the paper imply about the disagreement between Ji-hoon and Eric. Be specific. For instance, what do your conclusions in the paper imply about Eric's perspective on dog meat and elder care? (Note: Eric seems to be endorsing a view we've discussed quite a bit.)