The podcast on ethics relates broadly to the world of business and economics. In my microeconomics class we talked about normative statements regarding economies and the definition is nearly the same. Normative statements in economics make a value judgement on how something should or should not be. I can see why this is valuable in critical thinking and arguments, because as humans most arguments we first subconsciously evaluate morally. Essentially, in both cases we are judging, as humans do, whether we think something is good or bad before evaluating the evidence.
Furthermore, I find the topic of cultural relativism interesting because it can be seen in the real world every day. The school’s dining hall has vegetarian options not only for vegetarians but also for students who are part of religions that find it morally wrong to eat pork. Meanwhile, these students may be sitting tables away from a student who is currently eating pork. This difference in ideology, however, does not usually cause disagreements in the same way bigger differences do. Additionally, it reminds me of evolutionary processes talked about in leadership and the social sciences. Humans evolving and innovating in different environments caused the differing ideologies that now constitute cultural relativism.
You bring up an interesting observation, Helen! I never would’ve considered D Hall’s vegan and non-vegan options to be an act of Cultural Relativism. It makes me wonder how our society can learn how to function harmoniously even if there are differences in our beliefs. After all, if two students sat down to have a meal and one student was vegan while the other wasn’t, I am sure both students would still enjoy having dinner with one another despite their food and diet choices.
I thought your comparison about the DHall options as cultural relativism to be super interesting! The way you framed it really showed how two different strongly held moral beliefs (that eating all animals is wrong, and that eating beef or pork is wrong) could both be appeased by being inclusive. However, by providing options, even people with directly contadicting world view (eating animals is not wrong) could enjoy the same food or food with meat in it. I was little curious because we, as a culture, tend to cater to those that eat meat and see nothing wrong with it, even though those who don’t eat meat typically have strong moral opinions about why they don’t eat meat. This is because they are in the majority, even though vegetarian food is often more ‘inclusive’ in that more people could eat it without a moral dilemma. Thankfully, food choices tend to be a relatively low stakes position where people don’t force their moral beliefs on others (well, not everyone, but usually).
What an interesting place to apply ethics. It seems so obvious that economics has to consider ethicality when it comes to business practices (As a social democrat I kind of want to argue that in our capitalistic framework they don’t but I digress), and have to constantly battle between normative and relative ethics. I had never considered the dynamics of Dhall and the food situation. I feel that ethics tend to pose problems in themselves when someone’s version of personified ethicality interferes with someone else’s.