Moral Relativism

Descriptive Relativism

Descriptive relativism=> a thesis about cultural
diversity=> moral beliefs and practices vary
between cultures=> an empirical claim based on
evidence provided by anthropological research.

1. The strongest form of descriptive relativism=>
there are no norms or values that every human
culture endorses.
2. The weakest form of descriptive relativism=> all
cultures do not share the same moral outlook

Moral Relativism

Moralni relativizam = konjunkcija sledee dve teze:

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or
wrong only relative to some particular standpoint.
2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any
other.


Na osnovu prve teze se pravi razlika izmeu metaetikog i
normativnog moralnog relativizma: ako se u prvoj tezi govori o
istinitosti ili lanosti moralnih sudova, onda je re o metaetikom
moralnom relativizmu; ako se govori o ispravnosti ili
neispravnosti postupaka, re je o normativnom moralnom
relativizmu.

Moral Relativism

Moralni relativizam = konjunkcija sledee dve teze:

1. Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or
wrong only relative to some particular standpoint.
2. No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any
other.


Na osnovu prve teze se pravi razlika izmeu metaetikog i
normativnog moralnog relativizma: ako se u prvoj tezi govori o
istinitosti ili lanosti moralnih sudova, onda je re o metaetikom
moralnom relativizmu; ako se govori o ispravnosti ili
neispravnosti postupaka, re je o normativnom moralnom
relativizmu.

Cultural Relativism & Individual
Relativism

Cultural relativism=> the correct moral
standards (and the truth conditions of moral
judgments) are relative to cultures, or
societies.
Individual relativism=> the correct moral
standards (and the truth conditions of moral
judgments) are those endorsed by each
individual.
Taxonomy
Relativism
Moral
Relativism
Normative
Cultural Individual
Metaethical
Individual Cultural
Descriptive
Relativism
The weak
form
The strong
form
The Cultural Differences Argument
(Rachels, J., 2002)

1. Different cultures have different codes (this is a
fact).
2. If different cultures have different codes, then
there can be no objective truth in morality
(suppressed premise).

Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.
Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and
opinions vary from culture to culture.
Iconoclast
(the person deeply opposed to
conventional wisdom)

1. Iconoclast = a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions; a
destroyer of images used in religious worship, in particular.
2. Cultural relativism claims that the correct moral standards are relative to
cultures, or societies (various things are valuable, and that actions are
morally right, only because societies approve of them).
3. Individual relativism claims that the correct moral standards are those
endorsed by each individual (various things are valuable, and that
actions are morally right, only because the speaker approves of them).
4. Cultural relativist makes societies morally infallible (incapable of error).
5. Individual relativists make each persons basic commitments morally
infallible.

Therefore, iconoclast would by definition, always be mistaken.



Moral Equivalence

1. Individual relativism claims that the correct moral
standards are those endorsed by each individual.
2. Individual relativism is a doctrine of moral equivalence;
everyones basic moral views are as plausible as everyone
elses.

Therefore, if individual relativism is correct, then the moral
outlooks of Hitler are just as plausible as those of a Nobel
Peace laureate.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.


No Intrinsic Value
1. Individual relativists think that promise keeping,
generosity, kindness, or caring are valuable, if they
are, only because people approve of them.
2. Were our tastes to change, the morality of such
actions and character traits would change with them.

Therefore, there is nothing intrinsically good about
promise keeping, generosity, kindness, or caring.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.
Questioning Our Own Commitments
If individual relativism is correct, then I know
what is right so long as I know what I approve of.
What about the situations where I want to know
whether my commitments are worthwhile?
If individual relativism is true, this cannot make
sense, since my approvals and disapprovals are
the ultimate test of right and wrong.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.
Moral Progress
1. The gradual reduction in racist and sexist attitudes in
the United States seems to represent some sort of
moral progress.
2. According to cultural and Individual relativism, a
persons or a societys deepest beliefs are true by
definition.
3. If a persons or a societys deepest beliefs are true by
definition, then they cannot change for the better.

Therefore, cultural relativism and individual relativism
cant make sense of the most basic kind of moral
progress.
Individual relativism and the Problem
of Contradiction

1. According to individual relativism, a moral judgment is true if it
accurately reports ones feelings or commitments, and is false
otherwise.
2. In that case, people on opposite sides of a moral debate are both
saying something true.
3. Therefore, individual relativism generates contradiction (i.e. moral
statements are both true and false at the same time).
4. Any theory that generates contradictions is false.

Therefore, Individual relativism is false.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.
A Individual relativist Strategy for
Avoiding Contradiction
The solution implies that we usually dont mean what we say in our moral
debates. What we say is this:

o The death penalty is immoral.
o Abortion is wrong.

But what we mean is this:

o The death penalty is wrong, according to me.
o I disapprove of abortion.


The contradictions disappear!
But, individual relativists have to accuse nearly everyone of
misunderstanding their own moral claims.
Such reinterpretations is not always possible (The Frege-Geach Problem)
Such a view eliminates the possibility of moral disagreement.

The Euthyphro Argument
1. Individual relativists think that various things are valuable,
and that actions are morally right, only because people
approve of them.
2. Either an individual has reasons for his approval, or he
doesnt.
3. If he doesnt, then his approval is arbitrary.
4. If he does, then these reasons are what explains why
these things are valuable and various actions are right.

Therefore, acts are right because they are supported by
excellent reasons, not because individuals or groups just
happen to favor them.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.



Argument from Dogmatism
1. If there are objective moral standards, then
this makes dogmatism acceptable.
2. Dogmatism is the character trait of being
closed-minded and unreasonably confident
in ones own opinions.
3. Dogmatism is unacceptable.

Therefore, there are no objective moral
standards.
Argument from Dogmatism
1. If there are objective moral standards, then
this makes dogmatism acceptable.
2. Dogmatism is the character trait of being
closed-minded and unreasonably confident
in ones own opinions.
3. Dogmatism is unacceptable.

Therefore, there are no objective moral
standards.
Its perfectly consistent to say that
the answers to some questions
are objectively true, even though
youre not sure what those
answers are.
Therefore, objectivism does not
license dogmatism.
Therefore, the first premise is
false.
Moral Disagreement Undermines
Moral Objectivity
1. If well-informed, open-minded, rational
people persistently disagree about some
claim, then that claim cannot be objectively
true.
2. Well-informed, open-minded, rational people
persistently disagree about all moral claims.

Therefore, no moral claim can be objectively
true.
The Argument from Tolerance
1. Tolerance = the ability or willingness to allow opinions or
behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
2. Tolerance is valuable (or acceptable) only if the moral
views of different people are equally plausible.
3. Ethical objectivism rejects the idea of moral equivalence
(i.e. some moral views are better than others).
4. Therefore, if ethical objectivism is true, then the moral
views of different people are not equally plausible.

Therefore, if ethical objectivism is true, then tolerance is not
valuable (or acceptable).
Reductio od Absurdum of Relativism
1. Individual relativism claims that the correct moral
standards are those endorsed by each individual.
2. Individual relativism is a doctrine of moral equivalence;
everyones basic moral views are as plausible as everyone
elses.
3. Therefore, individual relativism supports tolerance.
4. But, if all moral views are equally plausible, then moral
views supporting tolerance and moral views supporting
intolerance are equally plausible (from 2 and 3).

Therefore, according to individual relativism, moral views
supporting tolerance and moral views supporting intolerance
are equally plausible.

* Cultural relativism faces the same worry.