ETHICAL RELATIVISM

• Explain the role that culture plays in moral

behavior and development

• Discuss the theory of ethical relativism

• Identify and explain the arguments FOR and AGAINST it

• Situate the theory of ethical relativism in the

context of Filipino cultural traits and values
LET’S AGREE TO
DISAGREE!
 Juan has a disagreement with
Maria, her girlfriend as to the
morality of premarital sex
(PMS). The morality of PMS,
according to Juan, depends on
PMS: who sees and engages in it.
Juan sees nothing ethically
“Everyone wrong in engaging in PMS since
according to him “everyone is
is doing it” doing it”. Is Juan correct? Does
the fact that (assuming)
“everyone is (really) doing it”
make it (PMS) right? Why or
why not?
C U L T U R E
CULTURE
noun| cul’ture
: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular
society, group, place, or time

: a particular society that has its own beliefs,

ways of life, art, etc.

: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that

exists in a place or organization
CULTURE plays a very influential and crucial role
in the development and formation of one’s
MORAL CHARACTER.
SOCIAL SCIENCES:
Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, etc.
MAJOR AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF
CULTURE to MORAL BEHAVIOUR

Ethics
CULTURE: a major topic for a multi-
disciplinary discussion
One can never truly separate MORALITY from
CULTURE.

Any discussion of MORALITY that is not rooted

with the living concreteness of HUMAN
CULTURAL LIFE is simply unrealistic and even
absurd.

ETHICS or MORALITY is simply defined by one’s

CULTURE.
QUESTIONS:
Is CULTURE all that there is to consider when we
talk about MORAL DEVELOPMENT?

Is MORALITY simply a matter of CULTURAL

INFLUENCES?

Is there “something” in one’s MORAL

BEHAVIOUR that cannot be totally reduced to
CULTURAL FACTORS?
ETHICAL RELATIVISM

MORAL view/framework/philosophy:

MORALITY is mainly, if not totally, dependent

on one’s CULTURE.
 ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL
RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
…that ETHICAL VALUES and BELIEFS
(as to what is right/good and wrong/bad)
are RELATIVE to the time, place, persons,
situations that hold them.
 CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
…that there are NO UNIVERSALLY VALID MORAL
PRINCIPLES;

…that ALL MORAL VALUES are VALID RELATIVE

TO CULTURE or INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
 CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
…“whether an ACTION is RIGHT or WRONG
DEPENDS on the MORAL NORMS of SOCIETY
or the MORAL COMMITMENTS of the
INDIVIDUAL,

…that NO ABSOLUTE STANDARD EXISTS by which

differing rules or commitments can be
judged.”
 CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
…that there are NO VALUES that cut across CULTURAL
BOUNDARIES and PEOPLES

…that MORALITY depends on a specific SOCIAL or

CULTURAL circumstances (traditions, customs, etc.)

…what is morally right or wrong varies fundamentally

from person to person or culture to culture
 CLAIMS OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM
…what is basically right for an individual or
group may be wrong for another

…an act or conduct may be both right and wrong

at the same time – right in one culture but
wrong in another
• MORAL SKEPTICISM
asserts that there are no valid moral principles
at all, or that we cannot know whether there
are any
MORAL SKEPTICISM = ETHICAL RELATIVISM

• MORAL NIHILISM
believes that nothing is morally right or
wrong.
MORAL NIHILISM = ETHICAL RELATIVISM
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

CLAIM:
“MORALITY depends on a specific
SOCIAL or CULTURAL circumstances
(traditions, customs, etc.)”

REASON/S:
• Throughout history many societies have held
beliefs and practices about morality that are
strikingly different from our own.

• Different societies or culture at least appear to

have vastly different moral codes.

• People in different societies have different

customs and different ideas about right/good
and wrong/bad.
• There is no transcultural consensus on which actions are
right and wrong, even though there is considerable
overlapping with regards to this.

• Careful study of the cultural practices of different peoples

supports the idea that what is and is not behaviorally
normal is culturally determined.
– Ruth Benedict

• Acquaintance with the wide variety of moral beliefs across

societies (may) lead us to deny that there is only one
correct moral code that applies to and binds all societies.
• ETHICAL RELATIVISM = CULTURAL DIVERSITY
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT

CLAIM:
“What is morally right or wrong varies
fundamentally from person to person or
culture to culture.”
REASON/S:
• People should not judge other people from other cultures or
societies on the basis of their own moral standards.

• Moral code of one’s particular culture has no special status

compared with the rest.

• No culture has the right to impose its own ethical views and
practices on anyone else. Least of all on people in different
cultures and traditions

• PROMOTE TOLERANCE and RESPECT for moral standpoints

different from what one upholds

• It entails “intercultural tolerance”.

• …Tolerance has always been considered a
virtue while taking a superior stance is usually
viewed as the height of arrogance if not plain
narrow mindedness…

• People should become more accepting of

moralities of others, no matter how these may
be radically different from their own.
• People have to see and realize that the other
side of the fence is not necessarily wrong.

• People have to stop this “we’re right and

they’re wrong” attitude and
rather view the other as simply “different”
• ETHICAL RELATIVISM = TOLERANCE AND RESPECT
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
CLAIM:
“ETHICAL VALUES and BELIEFS
(as to what is right/good and wrong/bad)
are RELATIVE to the time, place,
persons, situations that hold them.”

REASON/S:
• Our (moral) values are simply the result of our
having been conditioned to behave in a certain
way.

• We are all had been trained and conditioned to

have those feelings beginning when we were still
little children usually through parental rearing.

• We have been trained and brought up by our

parents or elders differently; so we have different
moral values and principles…
• All of us human beings acquire our moral beliefs
by a process of psychological conditioning.

• All of us, consciously or unconsciously, have

been subjected in one way or the other to some
sort of a “psychic manipulation” by our
“Significant Others”.

• Moral truth is relative to one’s own

psychological upbringing, nothing more, nothing
less.
• ETHICAL RELATIVISM = PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
CLAIM:
“Whether an ACTION is RIGHT or WRONG
DEPENDS on the MORAL NORMS of
SOCIETY or the MORAL COMMITMENTS of
the INDIVIDUAL.”

REASON/S:
• Whatever a society believes to be right is right for that
particular society.

• What is considered as “good” is what the majority, as

the major constitution of a society, approves or
acknowledges as good.
….as “bad” is bad.

• Morality is simply dependent of what the majority wants

or decides.

• What is good or bad is reducible to a kind of social

contract or a matter of group consensus.
• People should conform with and embrace the
ethical code of their respective societies or
cultures.

• As social beings by nature, it is but natural for

people to easily affiliate and conform to the
accepted ethical standards of the particular
group that they belong.
• People should be more accepting of their
own societal norms
and their beliefs gives a good basis for a
common morality within a culture.
• ETHICAL RELAVISM = CONFORMITY TO A
GROUP’S ACCEPTED ETHICAL STANDARDS
ARGUMENTS FOR ETHICAL RELATIVISM

5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT

CLAIMS:
“There is no such thing as objective
truth in ethics.”
“There are NO UNIVERSALLY VALID
MORAL PRINCIPLES.”
REASON/S:
• There is an undeniable fact of moral dispute
occurring between and among groups as well
as individuals.

• There is a usual experience of people having a

great difficulty in knowing what is the “right
thing” to do in a particular situation.

• We cannot (still) prove which moral opinions

are true and which are false.
• Ethical disputes seem to be far from being
resolved (unlike disputes between scientists).

Think of perennial moral issues

of euthanasia, abortion, divorce,
homosexuality, capital punishment, etc.

• Morality can (never) be proved….

• ETHICAL RELATIVISM = PROVABILITY
 MORAL CASE ANALYSIS
&
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF
ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 There was once an article in the newspaper in
2005 that reported a sexual assault (gang-rape)
done by a group of tribal men somewhere in the
African region against a married woman in her
30’s. The group’s action was carried with the
GANG blessings of the whole tribe where the group
belongs. It was an act of vengeance against
another for an offense done by a member of the
RAPE as a other tribe on one of its members. After the rape,
the woman was made to walk naked in public.
This was not just to inflict shame and pain to the
Form of woman but to her entire tribe. The “civilized”
world’s attention was caught and called the act as
Tribal “beastly” and “inhuman”. In fact the case was
brought to the UN which lambasted the act in the
strongest term possible. But is it correct for us to
Revenge condemn the act as morally wrong knowing that
the group acted only on behalf of their own
cultural group (as a matter of custom)? Can
culture/custom be subject to morality? Why or
why not?
 THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
ARGUMENT
• Arguing though that cultural “relativism” is an
indisputable fact, it does not by itself establish
the truth of ethical relativism.

• Cultural diversity as a sociological and

anthropological fact is in itself neutral to
making any value or moral judgment.
 THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
ARGUMENT
• Cultural diversity does not necessarily deny
the objectivity of moral values.

• What merely it is saying is that cultures do

vary in so many ways.
It does not categorically say whose or what
culture/s is/are doing and practicing what is
right.
THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

• A product of culture can express objective

truths.
So too a moral code be a product of culture
and yet still express objective truth about how

people ought to live.

THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

• If everything is relative, then the very truth of

relativism would also be relative.

(In here, the logic of relativism self-destructs)

THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

• CULTURAL DIVERSITY = ETHICAL RELATIVISM

• CULTURAL DIVERSITY = OBJECTIVE/UNIVERSAL

 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 On September 30, 2005, there was this caricature
(cartoon) appeared in the culture section of a
Danish newspaper Jylland’s Posten (The Jutland
Post) entitled “Muhammad ansigt” (The Face of
Muhammad) depicting the Prophet Muhammad,
The Face of with a bomb in his turban with a lit fuse and the
Islamic creed written on the bomb. This sparked a
Muhammad wave of violent mass protests and calls for
boycotts of Danish products by Muslims in many
parts of the world who felt offended by what they
considered as a blasphemy. The Danish Prime
Minister Andes Fogh Rasmussen (who described
the controversy as “Denmark’s worst international
crisis since the Second World War”) refused to give
in to the demand. He asserts that the publication is
part of the right of self-expression and religious
freedom that is embedded in Denmark’s
Constitution that has to be respected by all. (Since
then, 50 other newspapers from other countries
published the caricature.) Is self-expression and
religious freedom subject to morality?
 ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
• While tolerance is definitely a virtue, it cannot be
practiced consistently.
What if the culture in question does not have
toleration as part of its moral code?

No basis for criticizing people who are intolerant…

Cannot criticize anyone who espouses what they

might regard as a brutal practice, like Hitler’s genocidal
policy during the WW2.
 ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
• Allowing every individual or group to set their own standard
as a gesture of respect and tolerance will most likely lead to
eventual conflict and disorder,
what more with numerous existing standards.

• It is likely that the law of the jungle where “might is always

right” prevails.

• Tolerance is either not always good or always a virtue.

Tolerance should be tempered with a sense of outrage in the
face of extreme evil.
 ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT

• TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = ETHICAL RELATIVISM

• TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = EVIL

• TOLERANCE AND RESPECT = OUTRAGE IN THE
FACE OF EVIL
 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 Mandy befriends somebody
who grew up in the States. Her
name is Britney. They go along
Mandy and well except that Mandy finds
her newly found friend too
Britney: liberal on her attitude towards
Best of sex. Mandy by the way belongs
to a very conservative family
Friends that values traditional morality
especially concerning sex
But… issues. Is one’s upbringing the
ultimate basis of morality? Why
or why not?
Fallacious.
Genetic Fallacy

Fallacy of misrepresentation
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• Genetic Fallacy
(just because something comes from a
dubious source does not necessarily follow that
it is false or erroneous)
• How one acquires one’s belief does not
necessarily undermine its truthfulness or
validity.
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Even granting the truth of the premise…

that we do acquire our moral beliefs by a process
like the one psychologists described,
that we had been conditioned differently, so we
would have different moral beliefs

the conclusion that there is no such thing as

objective moral truth, does not follow,
hence unsound and invalid.
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• The question of how we acquire our beliefs is

logically independent of, and separate from,
the question of whether there are objective
facts to which those beliefs correspond.
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• Fallacy of misrepresentation.

• It tries to deceive us into believing that the matter of social

conditioning/training is all that there is in the person’s moral or
ethical development.

• It fails to give due consideration to other,

perhaps equally powerful if not more powerful
and significant factors that have contributed,
in one way or the other, to a greater or lesser extent,
to the formation and building of the individual sense of
morality.
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• The human person is the creator of his/her

values…
• One’s moral development or formation, is also a
matter of decision, not just condition.

…to disregard totally the specific role that our early

psychological upbringing played in the formation of
our moral values and behavior, is also committing
the fallacy of oversimplification.
 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING = ETHICAL

RELATIVISM

• PSYCHOLOGICAL UPBRINGING = AN ASPECT

OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 Mark, whose parents and brothers and
sisters are all living in the US, is a
Catholic and is married without kids. His
DIVORCE: Is marriage is beset with problems due to
irreconcilable differences with
it OK if done Dayanara, his wife for the past 10 years.
in the US? He wants a divorce. The problem is that
there is no divorce here in the
Philippines. Our culture considers it as
something unacceptable. Mark plans to
go and live in the US for good so that he
can have a divorce. Can divorce be
“right” if it’s done abroad where it is
allowed?
 THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT

• It makes the majority as the only true and

legitimate voice of what is moral or not.
• The majority is always right! They can never
be wrong! FALSE!
• The minority can also be correct in moral
matters.
“moral reformists”
 THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT

• Ignored the subgroup problem.

Reality of subgroups.
How can one define the boundary or scope of what really
constitutes a group?

In reality, people belong to a numerous subgroups.

People can belong to overlapping societies or groups. In fact
we all do.
At times, also in conflict with one another.
We are multicultural to some extent.
 THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT

• CONFORMITY = TRUTH/REALITY
 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM

1. THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARGUMENT

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM RESPECT
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
4. THE CONFORMITY ARGUMENT
5. THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT
 Christian is a new college graduate from
the seminary who is on an exposure
program. He never had any girlfriend
throughout his life. He now teaches
Ethics to sophomore nursing students in
an exclusive and prestigious university as
part of his formation before going back to
the seminary to continue his priestly
The Virgin studies. He was shocked to find out that
all his students consider PMS as
something acceptable. For him sex is
Seminarian sacred that should only be done by
married couples who are committed to
each other. The students of Christian,
upon knowing his moral philosophy,
simply told him that he is entitled to his
own opinion on the matter as they are
also entitled to theirs. Do you find this
reasoning valid? Why or why not? Is good
and bad all a matter of personal opinion?
 THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT

• Granting that indeed we are uncertain about

the morality of some of our actions and
decisions, and we cannot really “prove” them
beyond any reasonable doubt. This does not
mean that it has no answer whatsoever.

• Even if there were no solid way to know moral

truths, it would not follow that there are no
such truths.
 THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT

• It may be that some truths are forever hidden

from us ordinary and limited mortals.
But the very statement that they are hidden
paradoxically confirms that they exist.

• The very act of discussing whether it is ever

possible to resolve moral disputes, is itself a
“proof” that an “answer” exists.
 THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT

• Moral disagreements presupposed that there

are moral disagreements to resolve.

• There is something independent of the

disagreements which serve as some kind of a
basis or gauge, thus, making the
disagreements possible.
 THE PROVABILITY ARGUMENT

• PROVABILITY = ETHICAL RELATIVISM

• PROVABILITY = TRUTH
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM
• Discuss the theory of ethical relativism

• Expalain the role that culture plays in moral

behavior and development.

• Identify and explain the arguments FOR and AGAINST it.

• Situate the theory of ethical relativism in the

context of Filipino cultural traits and values.
THE AMBIVALENCE
OF FILIPINO TRAITS
AND VALUES
By Prof. Emerita S. Quito, PhD
1. HIYA (shame)

• Negative, because it arrests or • Positive, because it contributes

inhibits one’s action. to peace of mind and lack of
stress by not even trying to
achieve.
2. NINGAS-COGON (procrastination)
• Negative, because it begins
ardently and dies down as soon
as it begins.
• Positive, because it makes a
person non-chalant, detached,
indifferent, nonplussed should
anything go wrong, and hence
conducive to peace and
tranquility.
3. PAKIKISAMA (group loyalty)

• Negative, because one closes • Positive, because one lives for

one’s eyes to evils like graft and others; peace or lack of
corruption in order to conserve dissension is a constant goal.
peace and harmony in a group
at the expense of one’s comfort.
4. PATIGASAN (test of strength)

• Negative, because it is stubborn • Positive, because it is a sign that

and resist all efforts at we know our rights and are not
reconciliation. easily cowed into submission.
5. BAHALA NA (resignation)

• Negative, because one leaves • Positive, because one relies on

everything to chance under the superior power rather than on
pretext of trusting in Divine one’s own; it is conducive to
providence. humility, modesty, and lack of
arrogance.
6. KASI (because, i.e., scapegoat)

• Negative, because one disowns • Positive, because one can see

responsibility and makes a both sides of the picture and
scapegoat out of someone or know exactly where a project
something. failed; one will never suffer from
guilt or self-recrimination.
7. SAVING FACE
• Negative, because being closely
related to hiya and kasi, it
enables a person to shirk
responsibility; one is never
accountable for anything.
• Positive, because one’s psyche is
saved from undue
embarrassment, sleepless
nights, remorse of conscience; it
saves one from accountability or
responsibility.
8. SAKOP (inclusion)

• Negative, because one never • Positive, because one cares for

learns to be on one’s own but the family and clan; one stands
relies on one’s family and or falls with them.
relatives.
9. BUKAS NA/MAMAYA NA (procrastination)

• Negative, because one • Positive, because one is without

constantly postpones action and stress and tension; one learns to
accomplishes nothing. take what comes naturally.
10. UTANG NA LOOB (indebtedness)
• Negative, because one
overlooks moral principle when
one is indebted to a person.
• Positive, because it is a
recognition of one’s
indebtedness. This trait portrays
the spirit behind Filipino saying,
“He who does not know how to
look back the past will never
reach his destination”.
11. KANYA-KANYA (self-centeredness)

• Negative, because self-centered; • Positive, because one takes care

one has no regard for others. of oneself and one’s family:
“Blood is thicker than water.”