Moral Relativism


Some say that 'morals are relative'. If by this they mean that what is BELIEVED to be right and wrong sometimes varies from person to person and culture to culture and that people disagree about what's right and wrong, then they are correct. Let's call this view Descriptive Relativism. This view is true; most people believe that it's true; there's no disagreement here.




However, DR is not a moral theory or a view about the nature of right and wrong. It's just an anthropological (empirical) observation. Whether it has interesting implications for ethics we will discuss below.




Moral Relativism is a view about the nature of right and wrong: it purports to give us an explanation or a deeper understanding of what makes right actions right and what makes right actions wrong. It is an ethical theory.




Moral relativism comes in two varieties, individual and collective. Here are the basic, rough ideas of each:




Individual moral relativism says that a person is morally obligated to perform an action if, and only if, that person believes that action is right.






Some consequences of this view: ARGUMENTS AGAINST IMR





Premise 1. If Individual moral relativism is true, then





(a) if Joe Rapist believes rape is right, then rape is right,



(b) a person's moral beliefs, if held sincerely, are necessarily correct-it's impossible for anyone to be mistaken,



(c) if Joe changes his mind, then rape is now right (rape could be right on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but wrong the other days, just by Joe changing his mind, that's it!),



(d) if Joe wants to think about what he should do, he merely has to identify what he believes.





Premise 2: (a), (b), (c), (d), are false.



Conclusion: IMR is false (valid argument, modus ponens inference rule).






Cultural moral relativism says that a person is morally obligated to perform an action if, and only if, the majority of that person's society believes that action to be right.






Some consequences of this view: ARGUMENTS AGAINST CMR







Premise 1. If Cultural moral relativism is true, then



(a) if the majority of a society believes slavery is right, then slavery is right,



(b) then, if something is right, everyone is in one definitive society ,



(c) a societies' beliefs, if held sincerely, are necessarily correct-it's impossible for anyone to be mistaken,



(d) if collective judgement changes, then slavery is now right (slavery could be right on 1865, but wrong in 2000 (and nothing explains the difference other than the beliefs of the society),



(e) to identify what's right, we do a survey, and (e) moral reformers are ALWAYS mistaken.





Premise 2: (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) are false.



Conclusion: CMR is false (valid argument, modus ponens inference rule).






Alternatively, both these arguments could be caste as 'If you believe IMR or CMR, then you believe all the following (since a-e are entailed by the views). But you don't believe a-e, so you don't believe IMR.'




So, there are problems for moral relativism in both its forms. But why believe they are true in the first place? Some commonly given arguments are the following:




AN ARGUMENT FROM DISAGREEMENT



1. There is moral disagreement



2. If there is moral disagreement, then moral relativism is true.



3. Therefore, moral relativism is true.




If you find this argument compelling, then, consider this argument:



1. There is disagreement about the causes of cancer.



2. If there is disagreement about the causes of cancer, then 'cancer relativism' is true (a person has cancer if and only if the majority of the society believes she has cancer).



3. Therefore, cancer relativism is true.




Since the second argument is not a good one, the first isn't either, since they are analogous arguments (or maybe they're not? Re. the cancer example, one would rightly reply that believing someone to have cancer wouldn't make that person have cancer; but merely believing an action to be right wouldn't make it right either, presumably, so perhaps maybe they're not so disanalagous). The point of such arguments is that considered in itself, the mere fact of disagreement is never sufficient to show that there isn't a correct or true answer to a problem.



AN ARGUMENT FROM TOLERANCE



1. It's wrong to be judgmental and intolerant of other people and cultures.



2. If it's wrong to be judgmental and intolerant of other people and cultures, then we should believe that moral relativism is true.



3. Therefore, we should believe that moral relativism is true.




One response (although there are many . Since our society does not tolerate some things, we should not tolerate those things. We should do what others do and if most others are intolerant, then we should be intolerant to, right' So, if cultural moral relativism is true, then premise 1 is false, especially since premise 1 is usually stated as we ALWAYS shouldn't judge, etc. Relativism can't have this.




I've given a number of arguments against Moral Relativism. If you are not persuaded by them, you can rationally respond in only two ways: first, argue that at least one premise in each of my arguments is false, or you can, 2nd, argue that my arguments are invalid, i.e. that my premises do not logically support the conclusion. Since my arguments are valid (and that can be proven with mathematical certainty), your only option is to reject a premise. Or you can do what most philosophers have done and reject moral relativism as a faulty and false theory!



peace.