2 Moral Relativism

The meta-ethical theory that no absolute, universal or objective moral principles exist.

Theme: Why do different groups of humans have completely different moral facts?

Note: Moral Relativism is the overarching theory that no universal truths exist. Cultural Relativism is a specific type of moral relativism where the ’framework’ defining truth is a society/culture. Subjectivism is another type where the ’framework’ is the individual.

2.1 Descriptive vs Normative Claims

Descriptive claim - a statement of empirical fact, describing what is currently happening without passing judgement.

Normative claim - A statement of value, makes a judgement about how the world ought to be.

Is-ought fallacy (Hume’s Law): One cannot jump from a descriptive statement to a normative conclusion. Just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean that it ought to be that way.

2.2 Cultural Relativism (Descriptive vs Normative)

Descriptive cultural relativism - purely observational, empirical claim about human societies. What is morally right and wrong varies between cultures. Crucially, what varies is what people in different cultures think or believe is right and wrong.

Example: "In some cultures, people think gay marriage is okay; in others they don’t".

Example: "In the 1800s, the culture of American South believed slavery was morally acceptable. Today, modern American culture believes slavery is deeply immoral".

Normative cultural relativism - What is morally right and wrong varies between cultures, and what varies is what really is morally right and wrong.

Example: "In some cultures gay marriage really is permissible; in others it isn’t".

Example: "In the 1800s, slavery was actually morally right for the American South because their culture approved of it. Today, it is actually morally wrong for us".

Consequences of Normative Cultural relativism

1. We cannot criticize or judge other cultures. If a culture’s own code is the ultimate standard of right and wrong, we have no right to interfere with them.

2. We cannot criticize our own culture. If the majority of your culture decides what is right, then anyone who disagrees with the majority is, by definition, acting immorally. Under this theory, social reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi were technically acting immorally at the time, because they were protesting against the established moral code of their own cultures.

3. "Moral Progress" is a myth. We may think that humanity has improved over time, e.g. abolishing slavery. But according to Normative Cultural Relativism, there is no objective standard to move towards, and any change is just a shift in cultural tastes and norms.

2.3 Descriptive vs Metaethical vs Normative Moral Relativism

Descriptive Moral Relativism - a broader claim about humanity, that empirically, deep and widespread moral disagreements exist across different societies, and crucially, these disagreements are much more significant than whatever moral agreements there might be.

Metaethical Moral Relativism - Asserts that the truth or falsity of a moral judgement is not absolute or universal. (No objective truth exists.) The truth of a moral claim is entirely relative to the framework (culture/group).

Normative Moral Relativism - extension of the metaethical view, adding in normative implications on what we should do. Because there are no universal moral truths, the correct moral action is always dependent on context (often culture, but can also be individual). Further prescribes that we ought not to judge the moral beliefs/practices of other cultures, as no single moral code is superior.

Example

• Descriptive: Anthropologists observe that Culture A eats cows, while Culture B worships them.

• Metaethical: The statement ’Eating cows is right’ is true for Culture A and false for Culture B, and neither culture is objectively ’more correct’ than the other.

• Normative: Because truth is relative, Culture A ought not to judge or force its dietary laws onto Culture B.

2.4 The Cultural Difference Argument

1. Premise: Different societies have different moral codes.

2. Conclusion: There is no objective truth in morality, and we cannot judge the moral codes of other societies.

Logical fallacy: This arugment violates Hume’s Law, i.e. it jumps from a descriptive claim to normative claim. Just because cultures disagree about a moral issue, it is logically invalid to conclude that a universal truth ought not or does not exist. Similar to disagreements about scientific facts, one culture may be correct while another is mistaken. The fact that cultures disagree on moral issues only proves that figuring out moral truth is difficult, but does not logically prove that an objective moral truth does not exist.

Example

1. In the 18th century, some cultures believed that slavery was morally acceptable, while other cultures believed it was a horrific moral evil.

2. Therefore, there is no objective moral truth about whether slavery is right or wrong. It is purely a matter of cultural opinion, and we cannot say that one culture was objectively "better" or "more correct" than the other.

The mere existence of a disagrement doesn’t prove that a right answer doesn’t exist. It is entirely possible that an objective moral truth does exist, and the cultures that endorsed slavery were simply horribly mistaken.

2.5 Problem with Moral Relativism and Subjectivism

Problems with applying moral relativism:

1. Boundaries If a culture decides what is morally true, how to define the boundaries of that culture? Is it a country? Or a state?

2. Reformer’s Dilemma If a culture’s current standards are the definition of "right", then anyone trying to change those rules (like reformers fighting to end slavery) are technically acting immorally.

Slippery slope to subjectivism Boundaries of a culture are hard to define, so relativism might collapse into subjectivism. If a dominant culture can have its own truth, why can’t a sub-culture? If a sub-culture can, why can’t a specific family? And if a family can, why can’t a single individual?

Subjectivism argues that right and wrong are based on individual feelings, attitudes, or opinions, i.e. morality is entirely up to the individual person. Critics argue that moral relativism tends to slide all the way down to subjectivism, and then ethics doesn’t give any meaningful set of rules.

Collapse into non-cognitivism Relativists say truth depends on the culture. Subjectivists say truth depends on the individual. They share the same problem: if moral ’truth’ is just whatever a person/group currently approves of, then a moral statement loses its factual weight. Moral statements are just you venting your personal feelings, and have no actual truth value. The theory collapses completely into Non-Cognitivism. (Recall that non-cognitivism means moral statements are not capable of being True or False, instead they are just expressions of emotions.)

Saying ’Stealing is wrong’ is no longer a cognitive fact about the world; it simply translates to ’I personally dislike stealing!’ Because it just becomes a way to vent personal feelings rather than state facts.

Harman’s defense of Moral Relativism Harman argues that there are indeed no universal moral truths, but that ethics can still be treated as a system of rigorous, logical facts.

1. Frames of reference When throwing a ball on a moving train, the velocity of the ball is relative to a specific frame of reference. Harman argued that morality works the same way, i.e. "Stealing is wrong" should actually mean "Stealing is wrong relative to moral framework X".

2. Implicit agreements Moral truths are relative to a framework, and that framework is an implicit agreement among a group of people. This agreement determines what actions are deemed acceptable or "wrong" within that specific context.

3. Inner Judgements Because morality is based on these shared agreements, it only makes logical sense to say someone "ought" or "ought not" to do something if we assume they are actually plugged into our moral framework and share our basic motivations.

By defining moral statements as relative to an implicit agreement, this saves ethics from collapsing into meaningless emotion. If someone says, "Stealing is wrong", they are actually making a factual, cognitive claim about the relationship between an action and a specific framework. The truth value of the statement then depends on the framework (the implicit soceital agreement).