PHIL 213: Communicating Moral Issues

Dr. Brissey’s Notes

Shafer-Landau, “Ethical Relativism”

1. What is Ethical Relativism?: This week we will explore an ethical theory that is a type of
moral skepticism, which, as you would think, is a worry, especially for a philosopher in an
applied ethics class. Well, to sort everything out, let’s begin with a few definitions to get clear on
what this ethical theory is—ethical relativism—and what it is not.

a. Moral Skepticism: This is the view that there are no moral objective truths.

This begs for further analysis. What is a moral objective truth?

b. Objective Truth: is one that is true independent of what someone thinks of it.

We can think of many objective truths. For instance,

*Descartes’ was a French rationalist born in 1596.
*Locke was a British empiricist on generation after Descartes.
*Exodus reports that Moses destroyed the tablets that contained the decalogue.
*Obama was the first black President of the United States.
*There has never been a woman President of the United States.

Our question, however, is whether there are moral objective standards. If there are none, given a.
above, we must be a moral skeptic of some sort. The following is what Shafer-Landau has in
mind:

c. Moral Objective Truth: an objective standard is one that applies to everyone and is true
(or valid) regardless of what someone thinks.

The claim is that there are moral rules that hold for all persons regardless of their desires or
whether they think the principle is binding. In short, for the moral objectivist, SOME THINGS
ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG, REGARDLESS OF THE THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS
OF OTHERS.

Returning to our definition of moral skepticism (see a. above), a moral skeptic thinks there are
no standards that apply to everyone and is true independent of what someone thinks.

There are two kinds of moral skeptics that we will cover: ethical relativism and subjective
ethical relativism (henceforth ethical subjectivism.)

d. Ethical Relativism: This moral theory holds that an act is right (or wrong) if and only
if that culture believes it is wrong.

e. Ethical Subjectivism: This moral theory holds that an act is right (or wrong) if an only
if the individual believes it is wrong.
Based on this, right and wrong is subjective and based on the larger beliefs of the culture (ethical
relativism) or the individual (ethical subjectivism). Both conclude there is no rule or moral
requirement that is true independent of beliefs. What follows is ANYTHING can be a moral
requirement as long as the society or individual believes it.

Relativism
Majority Rule!
Custom is King! -Herodotus
When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do! -St. Ambrose

Subjectivism
My Truth!
Man is the Measure of All Things -Protagoras

2. Why Believe Morality is Relative?

Many hold the conclusion there are no objective moral standards because morals vary from
society to society. Society a holds x morally repugnant, while society y celebrates not-x. Thus,
according to the popular argument, morals are not objective (moral skepticism).

A. The Argument from Disagreement

1. Moral beliefs differ from society to society.
2. Therefore, there are no objective moral standards.

It is unclear how the conclusion follows from the premise. Why think that because people
disagree about morals there are not true ones? Well, this version of the argument does not
explain this. What is needed is a supplemental premise. The argument holds that if there is moral
disagreement, then there can be no moral objectivity. In fact, the argument needs this
supplemental premise to work. Take the following:

The Updated Argument from Disagreement

1. People disagree about morals.
2. *If people disagree about morals, then morals are not objective.
3. Therefore, morals are not objective.

Is the Argument from Disagreement a Good Argument?

Evidence for Premise 1. Louis Pojman, in one of the optional readings, calls P1 the Diversity
Thesis, also known as Cultural Relativism. This is a descriptive claim; it tells us how things
are, not how things ought to be. It, further, is well established by the work of anthropologists,
sociologists, historians, and many others. Take the following brief examples:

*Some societies think that honor killings—killing a female for, say, having premarital
sex or not dressing the right way or even for cause of being raped—while our own
condemns such acts as morally repugnant.
*The ancient Greek’s (e.g. read Plato’s Symposium) thought certain forms of pedophilia
 was morally permissible, while our own society condemns it.
*Prostitution and drug use is largely deemed immoral and illegal in the U.S., but the
former is a lucrative profession in Holland and the latter is seen as permissible in
Portugal.

Limits to the Diversity Thesis

Cultural relativism (the descriptive claim) is true, as I have told, but to what degree is it true. Do
societies fundamentally disagree about morals? It seems that the more we learn of the so-called
alternative societies to our own the more similarities we find. For instance, many professions
have international ethical standards. Further, in cases where there seems to be moral
disagreement. This, many times, is not a moral disagreement. For instance, [Abortion] some in
our society think it is permissible to kill a fetus at any stage of development, while others hold
that killing a zygote, embryo, or a fetus is morally wrong. The disagreement, however, does not
largely concern morals. Most pro-choice advocates, along with pro-life ones, believe killing an
innocent human being is morally wrong. The issue is a metaphysical one. What counts as a
person?

Further, [Active Euthanasia] pro-lifer holds that the restriction on killing an innocent human
being is absolute and non-overridable, even when a terminally ill patient wants to die. An
intentional killing is always morally wrong. The euthanasia advocates hold that mercy, the relief
of pain, and obeying the patient’s and families’ wishes overrides the physician’s duty to do no
harm. Now, the pro-lifer also values autonomy and mercy. As well, the euthenist values life. The
issue is the degree the value obtains in this scenario.

With these two examples, we can broadly surmise that most people hold the same values. The

There is diversity, but it is minimal diversity.

The Second Premise: The Dependency Thesis

Louis Pojman (again, one of the optional papers) calls the second premise The Dependency
Thesis. The name depicts the following claim:

a. If a principle is objective, then there is moral agreement concerning it.

The claim is that moral objectivity is dependent on popular support, and it is entailed by the
second premise: we are told if people disagree about morals then morals are objective.

However, this premise, as well as a., is implausible! Take the following argument.

The Ontological Objection: A Denial of the Dependency Thesis

The first premise tells us that value-opinions—the opinions taught in one society—differ from
various other societies. Nevertheless, a person’s opinions have no bearing on the actual existence
of a thing. For instance, a child may have a mistaken calculation, but it is still the case that two
and three is five, regardless of what one thinks. Similarly, a society may believe that the Earth is
flat or, say, it is the center of the universe. This false belief, again, has no bearing on the way
things actually are. The Earth is spherical, regardless of one’s belief, and the sun is the center of
the universe, again, regardless of opinion. Further, there is much disagreement in the sciences on
the most fundamental issues.

In short, the claim is that the supplemental premise, P2, is false.

B. The Argument from Situations

There is another important argument against objectivism, called the Argument from Situations.
The claim is that it is false that morals are universal, applying to all people at all times, for there
are many cases where, frankly, we are morally required to break the rules. There are cases where
it is morally permissible to tell a lie—e.g. when a murderer asks where his victim is hiding—and
break a promise—say, to not show up for a meeting due to your son having a vicious cut. The
following is the formal argument.

Argument from Situations

1. Either ethical relativism or ethical objectivism is the true moral theory.
2. If ethical objectivism is true, then there are immutable/unchanging moral values that
never should be broken.
3. Moral values change based on situations, and thus they are not immutable.
4. Therefore, ethical objectivism is false.
5. Therefore, ethical relativism is true.

Notice that premise one is an instance of the fallacy of false dilemma; that is, there are other
possibilities: mainly, nihilism and ethical subjectivism. Nevertheless, the claim is one of the
theories must be true. I think we should grant that.

As well, it seems that premise 3 is plausible. Values change based on situations. In one situation,
x ought to lie. In another, she ought not. Let’s grant this premise as well.

The false premise seems to be the second one. Notice the difference of the following concepts:

a. Absolute Values are those that hold for everyone, regardless of one’s beliefs, and,
further, are non-overridable; that is, the rule should never be broken. (e.g. Thou shall
never murder! Period. No Exceptions!)

b. Objective Values are those that hold for everyone, regardless of one’s beliefs, but
may be overridden by another value based on the situation.

The mistaken claim in the Argument from Situations is ethical objectivism is ethical absolutism.
The objectivist can nicely explain situationism by arguing that values are overridable and apply
differently in different situations. This, however, is not a form of relativism because the same
values hold in the different situations. Additionally, the claim is similarly situated persons ought
to make the same judgment in the situation, regardless of who is making it and what society he
or she lives.

C. Conclusion
The Argument from Disagreement and the Argument from Situations establish that morals are
not objective, which suggest one form of moral skepticism is true: mainly ethical subjectivism or
ethical relativism.

3. The Consequences of Relativism

Many philosophers argue that we should abandon relativism, broadly construed, as false because
the theory has bad consequences. Take the following argument:

The Argument from Bad Consequences

1. If an argument has bad consequences, it is most likely false.
2. Relativism has bad consequences.
3. Therefore, relativism is most likely false.

In what sense does relativism have bad consequences?

First, relativism entails that the views of the society or individual is infallible. Consider the
following objection.

A. The Moral Infallibility Objection (Relativism and Subjectivism)

1. If relativism is true, then rightness (and wrongness) of actions is infallibly determined
by the culture.
2. We all make mistakes—cultures, societies, and individuals—especially on moral
matters; thus, actions are not infallibly determined by the culture.
3. Therefore, relativism is false.

Second, relativism entails that societies and individuals are morally equivalent; one is not better
than the other.

B. The Moral Equivalence Objection

1. If relativism is true, then a society that holds that slavery, genocide, pedophilia,
racism, and sexism is morally permissible is morally equivalent to a society that holds
these acts are wrong.
2. A society that holds that slavery, genocide, pedophilia, racism, and sexism is morally
permissible is NOT morally equivalent to a society that holds these acts are wrong.
3. Therefore, ethical relativism is false

Third, relativism gives us the unsatisfying conclusion that there is no moral progress, and people
who challenge the status quo are immoral and wrong. Heroic figures that protest and argue for
social change, social reformers, are doing something wrong because it goes against the morals of
the society.

C. The Moral Progress Objection

1. If relativism is true, then there is no moral progress.
2. Most people think there is moral progress (e.g. slavery, separate but equal, women’s
suffrage, etc.).
 3. Therefore, relativism is false.

Fourth, relativism fails to provide moral guidance for many situations.

1. If a theory is true, it gives moral guidance in simple, practical situations.

2. Relativism fails to give guidance in simple scenarios.
3. Therefore, relativism is false.

The role of a moral theory is to explain what we take to be morally valuable and provide moral
guidance for practical situations. Nevertheless, premise 2 tells us relativism fails at this. Recall
the female, genital mutilation scenario we discussed on the first day. We explored a scenario
presented by Phil Washburn where a relativist from the U.S. hired a nanny for her daughter. The
nanny and the nanny’s culture believed in female, genital mutilation to make women chaste and
live fulfilling lives. The relativist knew this and admired her and her culture. Nevertheless, the
nanny circumcised the relativist’s daughter. Oh no! She did not want her daughter circumcised.
Nevertheless, the question is: Did the nanny do something morally wrong?

Well, everyone obviously says “Yes!” This is commonsense, but it seems that the relativist
cannot satisfactorily explain why the nanny did something morally wrong.

The relativist believes that cultures are morally infallible and determine what is right or wrong.
In the nanny’s culture, female circumcision is morally obligatory. In the relativist’s culture, on
the other hand, it is morally wrong. All culture are morally equivalent; one is not better than the
other. Thus, it is unclear whether the nanny did anything wrong.

Fifth, it seems that relativism also self-refutes itself. It assumes exactly what it denies, which is
extremely problematic. Take the following argument:

The Self-Refutation Objection

1. If a theory self-refutes itself, it is false.
2. Relativism self-refutes itself.
3. Therefore, relativism is false.

Well, the key question is how does it refute itself. Relativism holds the following:

a. There are no objective moral truths, and, for this reason, what is right is
determined by the society or the individual.

Based on this, there is no moral truth that holds for everyone, but this is not true, for the principle
of relativism is that rightness of acts is determined by the society. The force of this conclusion is
that it holds for everyone. Thus we get the following:

b. The moral principle of relativism is an objective truth.

Thus, the theory claims there are no objective moral truths and then concludes that the principle
of relativism is an objective moral truth. This seems to be bad logic!