 Hello viewers, today we are going to talk about, in the second section of the topic ethics, we are going to talk about Metaethical Theories. If you take a look at the slide, it questions, well in Metaethical Theories, the first issue that we would be tackling is Ethical Relativism. Is there anything wrong at all, now that is the fundamental question. Now, if you would recollect that, when we talk about Ethical Metaethics, we have talked about there being three gradations in Ethics. The first one being the deepest and the most foundational question tackled by Metaethics. The second tackled by Normative Ethics or Moral Theories. And the third one is Applied Ethics, where Moral Theories meet real problems out there. Now, Metaethics is the most foundational or deepest questions of Moral Philosophy. Any subject, any issue or any topic, when it has meta-prefixed, it becomes a second order study, a study about the study itself. When if you take a look at the slide, whenever this word meta is put in, meta means second order or studying from a distance. So, that way, when we talk about Meta-Physics, it is a study about Physics, whereas Physics would be about the roughly physical bodies and measurable entities, Meta-Physics would be about studying the various methodologies of studying Physics. Now, coming back to Meta-Ethics. So, Meta-Ethics is actually taking a second person or a second order view, a distant view on the discipline of Ethics, that before we start theorizing on Ethics, what are the most foundational questions? Can we theorize on Ethics? Now, if you look at the first question that we talk about, which is Ethical Relativism. Is anything wrong at all? Right? So, there is a question that I think many of you must have faced earlier, that well let me put forth a view, that well what do we mean, when we say is anything wrong at all. Now, many of us have perhaps thought that well, suppose I need to know what is the color of this board, I would I would ask, I would think it is green, I would ask a few others, that what do you think is the color of the board green, color of the board, some of them may say green, may be all of them would say green, may be somebody would say it is some other color, how would we verify, we would verify them well by a scientific instrument that would measure the frequency and wavelength of the light waves bouncing back from this board and that would be an undeniable proof that well the board is of so and so color. Now, what does this question signify or what is this example signify, the example signify is that well, there can be an objective answer to the question, what is the color of this board, but in the same string do we wonder, can there be an objective answer to what is the right thing to do, that there is something called right and wrong. Now, say a most of us would feel perhaps or would opine that unprovoked violence is wrong, now let us compare it with the same board example. Now, in the board if we say well two types of proposition we take, board is green, unprovoked violence is wrong or bad, now let us say these are two kinds of propositions that we have taken right, well the board is green and unprovoked violence is better wrong, we saw in this example well first is ask others right, here also we can have the same classification we ask others whether this holds or not, maybe most of us would agree that well unprovoked violence is bad or wrong or evil and just as most of us would agree that well the color of the board is green. If there is a difference of opinion, if the answer to this is yes all agree then it is over, but if it is no then what, now in the same stream that when we ask others and if it is yes all agree then we have a consensus and agreement by the number of questioners. Again of course, there is a little disclaimer there that maybe even if all of them agree that could be different, well in either case even if all agree or if there is a disagreement the next question that is coming up is are we once we want to verify this, how do we verify this, well for this question we verify it by a instrument, what does the instrument do, it measures the world out there, now what about this question, now coming back now spinning this story around the question that we ask that well if unprovoked violence is wrong how do we know, well we ask others and others agree or disagree, but we now need a extrinsic external verification and where where do we get this, is that a fact of the world can we look out into the world to find what there is that there is something wrong with unprovoked violence, many of us would think well there is nothing out there in the world there is no instrument that can tell us that well there is something wrong with unprovoked violence and therefore maybe this cannot be verified. So, can we then the question comes that if this be the reasoning then the ultimate question that comes is there anything wrong at all, this comes out to be the fundamental question that we are going to tackle now in this session, because this is a metaethical question when it asks that is there anything wrong at all, now coming back to the presentation, now when we ask the question that is anything wrong at all we are asking a second order question, now what is metaethics, well it involves a lot of question marks and a lot of thinking, because it goes into the foundations of the moral theorizing or ethical theorizing, now can moral claims be true or false, what is the source or justification of moral claims, if we find the justification of moral claims what is the source, how do you justify moral claims. Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake, interestingly a very seminal paper in ethics was also written by the same name that does moral philosophy rest on a mistake, that is are there reasons to progress with moral philosophy, how is our social psychological build determining our ethical world view, well now if you do a lot of thinking that where what is the foundation of the ethical quest or ethical theorizing, now can moral claims be true or false, these are the questions that are raised by metaethics, if the dreams are true or false what how do we justify the claims, is there any justification for progressing with moral philosophy, well how is our social psychological build determining our ethical world view, that is is it that how the way we are brought up, the way we have the experiences that we are exposed to determine our ethical world view, so these are the questions that metaethics tackles, well the first question we talk about that well is the ethical relativism, now there is a this is a foundational metaethical question that we face before philosophizing on morality, now pay attention this is the claim of ethical relativism, the claim of ethical relativism may be put forth as that there are various moral systems or frames of references, frames of reference and that there can be no hierarchy made between the various frames of reference, that there can be no trans-perspectival ethical system, every ethical system develops in its own environment and is applicable to its own environment only. Now, let us look at this question that we are tackling that well, like many of us would perhaps think that well it is a common term today to say that well I am non-judgmental, that I do not make any judgments, that ethical relativism is being non-judgmental, that is a crucial term that we might need to be aware of, that what do I say when I say, what do I mean when I say that I am non-judgmental as an ethicist or in my ethical perspective. Now, when I say perhaps when somebody says that he or she is non-judgmental, what she or he probably and more accurately means is that that person does not see that one person can judge the moral claims of another person, that means my moral claims are my moral claims and your moral claims are your moral claims and there is no way I can judge yours or you can judge mine, because we belong to different domains. It is the same, it is a powerful argument which relativists in various domain give, relativists in general and ethical relativists in particular. Well, the phrase like you cannot compare Apple with oranges, because they are simply two different kinds of fruits. To compare any two claims or entities there has to be a common factor, you cannot compare the relativist claim as well, you cannot compare an apple with an orange, because they are different fruits. But, well you can compare an apple with an orange, if you are exploring from the dimension of sweetness, you are exploring from the dimension of weight, you are exploring from the dimension of aesthetic appeal. That could of course be a little questionable initially, but we leave that question now for it is out of the view of our enquiry in this course. But, if apples and oranges can be compared with respect to their sweetness, can moral claims be compared? Now, the ethical relativist says that well there are various moral frames of reference. And there is no way we can compare one frame of reference with the other. Now, that would mean that well, if I have arrived at a moral frame of reference from whatever be the causes, be it my socialization, my religion, my culture, A and somebody else has come up with another moral frame of reference, B the two cannot judge upon each other, each is right from his own perspective. Now, such a claim seems very plural, very fashionable, very tolerant, very acceptable, very polished, very sophisticated, very open and very cosmopolitan. But, let us explore this claim to find out that well, if this is really the case. So, let us clearly look at the slide now that what exactly is the claim. Now, as philosophers we would like to first define what is the problem. So, what we need to remember is this crucial way that there are various moral systems or frames of reference and that there can be no hierarchy made between the various frames of reference. Now, notice what this is not denying. Now, it is saying that well, if I say that there are no moral values, am I an ethical relativist? No, what am I? I am actually a moral or ethical nihilist. Now, what the ethical relativist? We will refer to it shortly as in abbreviation as E R, what the ethical relativists claim is that there are right, there is right and wrong and these right and wrong are not, depend on their frames of references and there can be no trans-perspective ethical system for the same. Well, let us look at a presentation to know the detail. As we find mentioned on the slide that there can be no trans-perspective ethical system. Now, every ethical system develops in its own environment and is applicable to its own environment only. Now, let us look at this on a new slide and what is the difference, because our understanding of ethical relativism is very essential to proceed further. Now, first what can be, what various positions can be? First that there are no moral or ethical values at all. Now, this could be that well, they are figments of imagination or they are creation of convenience. Now, in either case, if they are figments of imagination and we downright hold that there are no moral or ethical values that ethical or moral values are meaningless. Then, we are an ethical nihilist or moral nihilist that is denying the very existence of morality. Whereas, these two domains are claiming that moral values are fictitious, but meaningful fictitious. We could see that there are certain strains of ethical theories such as emotivists, which subscribe to this kind of a theory. But, if one claims that ethical values are meaningless, then we are strictly an ethical nihilist. Now, if second I hold that there are ethical values and or but they originate and depend only on their frames of reference. Then, I am an ethical relativist that the ethical relativist is claiming that there are ethical values, but the ethical values are relative to the frames of reference in which they have originated. There is nothing absolute about them. Now, if there is nothing absolute, what it means that well, every ethical value is from its perspective, from a perspective no trans-perspectival value. Now, if this is the claim that there are no trans-perspectival values, then well, we are strictly an ethical relativist. Now, we need to be clear or why we are focusing on this fact is that well, our understanding of ethical relativism needs to be very sharp, distinguished from various other strains possible. Now, the ethical relativist agrees that there are moral values, only says that these values come from a frame of reference and there is no way of comparing moral values from different frames of reference. Now, if this be the case, what is the situation? Now, let us first look at evaluate oneself, whether you belong to the first category or the second category or none. Please take a look at the slide. Now, the first category would claim that there are no moral values, that everything is subject to permission, then you are an ethical nihilist. The second is an ethical relativist which says that well, you believe in ethical values, but these values depend on their frames of reference. The third can be an absolute frame of reference. The third can be termed as moral or ethical absolutism, that there is a trans-perspectival value or values. Now, if you go on to the next slide to see that, what is the appeal of ethical relativism? For many of us who would find ourselves belonging to well, that yes, there are moral values, but it depends on frames of reference. Well, let us assume that get into the psyche of these non-judgmental perspective or that once ethical theories cannot be judged from another perspective. Well, it is common fact that we have heard. If you look at the slide, the appeal of ethical relativism is that to each his own, it is common to come across the view that each one of us has a right to his or her own ethical point of view and that others ought not to interfere. Now, does this strike to you as liberal? It seems that ethical relativism gives space to the view point of the other. It is non-absolutistic and therefore, non-autocratic. It seems to it seems only to advocate moral pluralism and a tolerance for the view of other. It is also associated with intellectual humility or fallibility. Now, let us take a look that what is the appeal of ethical relativism? Now, the ethical relativist is of the opinion that there are various frames of reference in terms of moral claim and that one frame of reference cannot be compared to the other frame of reference. They are different. Now, this non-judgmental claim that we cannot judge others has an appeal of its own and let us try to analyze what is the appeal of such a non-judgmental position or the position of an ethical relativist. First, its claim is it gives space to the view point of the other. Now, we see that well, giving the other space because as long as we hold an absolute judgment, we find it imposing on all others. Now, the ethical relativism is not only tolerant is leaves ontological, psychological space to the other. So, it is non-absolutistic and therefore, non-autocratic. It is not absolutistic because it does not commit to any absolute claims which are bounding, which are binding on the other. Nothing is binding on the other. Now, it seems to advocate moral pluralism and a tolerance for the view of the other. Now, if nothing is binding on the other, can we infer from this that nothing can be binding on the other. Now, this is a crucial jump which perhaps nothing is binding to nothing can be binding. This is perhaps the crucial jump that the ethical relativist takes. Well, if nothing is binding on the other, is it also the position that nothing can be binding on the other. Think over this distinction and we will talk about it in the coming slides. Now, our claim is that well, is the appeal of ethical relativism misplaced. Tolerance is a virtue. Let us explore. What exactly do we mean by tolerance? When x or any person tolerates y, a claim or an act, let y stand for a claim or an act. So, when x tolerates y, isn't x already making a judgment upon y. Only x is merely refraining from expressing or enacting it. A trans-perspective frame of reference is the goal of an ethical engagement. This is crucial. Is the universal declaration of human rights an example of such a trans-perspective claim? This is a question that is raised for you to think over. Now, tolerance is a virtue. It has intellectual humility or it has a level of tolerance associated with. Well, whether various arguments the ethical relativists give, that first to start with that well, that there are different cultures and different moral practices. So, wherever cultures differ, moral practices differ and therefore, we find that well, ethical relativism is a well founded claim that there can be no final morality. Now, let us look at this way. When cultures interact, when culture A and culture B interact, how do they arrive at a consensus? There are very crucial questions that we would face over here as well. If let us take again an example, let us have culture A and culture B. Let us see, let us have them interact. Like most of us are now have been exposed to cosmopolitan or a culture separate from what we have been raised with. Now, there are moral practices which differ a lot. So, let us say now the ethical relativists, the non-judgmental relativists claims that well, somebody who comes from culture A, somebody who comes from culture B have different moral values. Now, if these two moral values are different, we find that when they interact, what are the moral values that they would imbibe? Now, look at it this way. Now, if A and B are interacting, let us imagine A as an individual and an interesting and a very relatable choice is say, A as an individual gets married to B as an individual. They get married. Now, A and B have different, have been raised in different cultures. They decide to get married and now, they are married and they live together. Now, there is a limit to the plurality they can observe. Suppose, every cultural value that they have, they will somehow have to find a middle way or a final moral value. Say, if one believes in aggressively believes in not wasting food and the other believes that well, food has to be offered to plants and animals. So, she puts in cooked food on outside, which to the other individual is a waste of food. Now, this is strictly an example where two practices are clashing and there can be only one resolution, because we share one final space. So, here how do we arrive at a conclusion, at a final practice? Now, this is a dilemma that the ethical relativist faces that well, we are very happy that A and B are married, but after that, what is the final moral values or cultural values that will come along? So, now, there is a little bit of spelling mistake here. Now, when A and B are married, the final moral values, where does that come from? A and B have to interact, negotiate. There can be trans-perspective values according to absolutist, where both have to evaluate their values and bring forth a final moral value. Now, let us again take a look at this. What are differences in values? Because, ethical relativism is founded on the first observations that we have, that well, there are various cultures and therefore, various ethical values. Now, what exactly is a value? Clarity in these concepts is necessary to progress further. Now, if somebody believes, let me give an example that well, why do we hold an inference examination or a test for recruitment or for admission into a coveted college or course? We hold a test, because it gives us a hierarchy of capable students and the top lot for which the college or the course has vacancy are invited to join. Now, we find this fair, fairness as a value, examination process as a practice. Now, this practice has its core value as fairness or justice that well, depending on the performance of the entrance examination procedure, you would be invited for an interview. Fair enough. Now, let us look at it this way. Let us go flashback 1000 years back into India's past. Now, there again, now there was this Gurukul system in which admission was open only to the Brahmins. Now, if that cost based admission, does it seem to be fair? It is again, that is an entrance, that is an examination procedure, that is a practice, does it seem to be fair? Now, these are two different practices, both targeting fairness. Today, we find it unfair, but let us try to reason how perhaps people then reasoned. Let us say that the people assumed or believed unquestioningly that there was, there were lives and afterlives and birth and death and beyond that, there were lives. So, what and where and how you are born depends on the accumulate of your karmic desert that you have accumulated over the past life. So, if you are born into a clan or a caste that is entitled to education, that is not an accident, but because it is your desert from your past lives. Now, look at the fairness brigade. Now, we find this practice unfair today, because we believe that birth is a matter of accident. But if we believe that birth is a result of your cumulative achievements of your past lives, then this procedure, this custom of entrance via clan or caste again becomes fair. So, notice that there is a practice, but the core of which is a value. Let us even think of simpler examples. In the Oriental tradition, one would bow down to one's elders to express respect. In Occidental traditions, one would shake hands to greet even an elder. Now, these are two different practices. Both of them may appear contradictory at the superficial level, but within them, they embody the same value. So, practices or the paraphernalia around values or values are embodied in cultural practices. So, to read separation or difference in practices is not to infer immediately that there is a difference in values. So, let us note down this crucial point, that difference in practices is not necessarily difference in values. Now, this is a crucial claim that we need to comprehend. That well, very often the ethical relativists makes this mistake of finding difference in practices as difference in cultural values. Say, in one culture, it is considered that premarital sex is considered immoral. In another culture, premarital sex is considered moral. It is still a matter of practices, because for one, the act of copulation embodies a commitment and in another culture, perhaps it does not embody a commitment. So, as long both the cultures respect commitment and breaking commitment or following one's commitment or following the commitment made is a core value. Now, in one culture, the act of copulation is an act of commitment and therefore, it should not be made before. It should not be done in that culture, because it is violation of the commitment. In fact, it is prior to the making of a commitment. So, violation of a commitment is a core value, but how it is expressed? Now, for somebody say something like politeness, like etiquettes, when I say good morning or a good evening to you, do I really mean that I am wishing you well for the morning or the evening? Now, this in some culture is or in most of the cultures that we are used to today is fine etiquettes, but if analyzed or looked at from a culture which holds truth as a final value is well and is denial of the connect between a claim and its intention. Now, let us simplify this. So, differences in practices is not necessarily difference in values. So, practices embody core of the core of practices are values or practices embody values. Values are the crux of practices. Differences in practices does not mean differences in does not necessarily mean difference in values. So, now, when we talked about this couple who got married, now they may have difference in cultural practices, but they may that necessarily does not mean that they have difference in values. Now, after having said all this we can still hold that there can be a difference in moral or core values also that do all of us find justice as desirable? How we interpret or analyze justice? There may be variance. Do all of us find fairness as better than unfairness? Whatever are definition of fairness be? Do all of us find making and sticking to commitment better than making and breaking commitments? Now, these are fundamental values. Now, if there is a difference in these values what does it signify? Very often now if you look at the slide when I say that well the ethical relativist is a tolerant person. Now, what are we meaning when says that the ethical relativist is tolerant? Because when the ethical relativist is actually tolerating, so this credit that the ethical relativist is given that well the ethical relativist is tolerant is actually not justified, because even the act of tolerance implies that a judgment is already being made and only that the judgment is not expressed or enacted. So, the ethical relativist where crucially disagrees with the absolutist is that a trans-perspectival frame of reference is the goal of an ethical engagement. Now, the ethical relativist believes that this trans-perspectival enterprise is not possible and this is where the ethical relativist differs from the ethical absolutist. Now, let us take an example is the universal declaration of human rights an example of such trans-perspectival claim. Now, we will talk about the universal declaration of human rights that well how does it stand for a trans-perspectival claim, because well when the United Nations declared the universal declaration of human rights, it expects it to be binding on all people at all times across all countries and civilizations. Now, this is a blatantly anti-relativist claim that well there are certain practices or certain rules or certain laws or articles as the UDHR mentions which are applicable all through the country and civilization. So, there are core values which are embodied in these articles that are fundamental and non-negotiable across cultures. So, if we are an ethical if you are an ethical relativist you would have to disagree with the universal declaration of human rights. A non-judgmental relativist has to cannot judge. Now, imagine yourself when you say that you are when an agent says that he or he is tolerant of the other well sure he is not actually an ethical relativist or he is making a judgment only not expressing it. Let us say you are walking by a park and you see another person mercilessly kicking a puppy. Now, you would as an ethical relativist be indifferent to it, that how does it that it is his life, it is his culture and for him if it is right I cannot judge it. If you feel that what that person is doing is wrong and yet not express it you could be said to be tolerant, that well you disagree with what he is doing, but you disagree with what that person is doing, but you reserve your judgment or your expression of your judgment to that individual. If you are an absolutist you would actually go and ask him that to stop doing that or that well he is doing the right thing and let him continue doing that. The very fact that one can sit on the judgment seat on the other or one does judge the other or one can judge the other indicates that ethical relativism may not be as appealing as it sounds initially right, that well for an imagine an ethical relativist going through life well any value acts taking place around the ethical relativist cannot react to such an act because his metaethical claim is that well there is nothing that we there is there is no judgment to be taken on another moral frame of reference. So, tolerance is not as much as an indicator of ethical relativism as perhaps it is made out to be. Now, we will go ahead to see the universal declaration of human rights. Let us take a look at these rights and find out trans-perspective claim.