Moral Relativism,
Cultural Differences
and Bioethics
Prof. Eric Barnes
Moral Absolutes?

THE PROBLEMS:
Narrow Minded Moralism
 “Who’s to say what is right?”
 Cultural Differences Abound

Moral Relativism

DEFINITION: A theory asserting that a
moral claim is right if the individual (or
her culture) believes that it is right.

Therefore, two people with opposite
moral evaluations of the same thing can
both be right (or, at least, it can be that
neither is wrong).


Abby: “Bombing Nagasaki was wrong.”
Sierra: “Bombing Nagasaki was not wrong.”
Radical Relativism


All facts are supposed to depend
on what people believe.
CORE CLAIM:


Nothing is objectively true.
Easily refuted by pointing out that
the core claim must be presented
as objectively true.
Objectivity in the World

In Math:



In Science:


5+7=12, no matter what you believe.
There is no largest prime number, like it or not.
The Earth is round, and it was round even when
everyone believed it was flat.
In Religion:

Either God exists or God does not exist. If God
exists, then God exists regardless of whether
anyone believes it. If God does not exist, then
God doesn't exist regardless of how sincerely
anyone believes that God does exist.
Vocabulary Translation

Relativists say: “X is true for me.”

Objectivists hear: “I believe X.”


What else could this mean?
Key Objectivist Claim:


What one believes can be false,
even if it is true that you believe it.
(The fact the you believe it doesn’t make it true.)
Let’s Play: Do They Disagree?

You tell me if the two people’s
statements disagree with each
other.


Some are tricky.
Remember: Two statements can
only disagree if they are about the
same thing.
Do They Disagree?


Columbus: “The Earth is 18,000
miles in circumference.”
Eratosthenes: “The Earth is
25,000 miles in circumference.”
Do They Disagree?

Gilligan: “My car is green.”

Skipper:
“My car is red.”
Do They Disagree?


Marcia: “I believe that Paris is
the capital of Spain.”
Greg: “I believe that Paris is
not the capital of Spain.”
Do They Disagree?


Laverne: “The government
should make all abortions
illegal.”
Shirley: “The government
should not make all abortions
illegal.”
Do They Disagree?


Jerry: “Capital punishment
seems unfair to me.”
Kramer: “Capital punishment
seems fair to me.”
Do They Disagree?


Homer: “Homosexuality is
immoral.”
Smithers: “Homosexuality is
not immoral.”
Do They Disagree?


Archie: “We should force all
other people to adopt American
values.”
Edith: “We should be tolerant
of most other people's values.”
Lessons Learned

If moral claims were just statements
of one’s beliefs, then disagreement
about moral issues would be
impossible.


Agreement would be equally
impossible.
People do disagree about morality,
so there must be an objective
moral truth about which they
disagree.
Moral Imperialism

The moral imperialist claims:





1) there are objective moral facts;
2) he knows what these are; and,
3) it is right to impose these on others.
Objectivism is not imperialism
The only way to reject imperialism
is to accept moral objectivism.

The relativist can’t assert that
tolerance is better than intolerance.
Circumstances Matter

Objectivism accepts that circumstances
are relevant to a moral evaluation.

Both of these statements might be true:


“Infanticide is morally unacceptable in
Boston.”
“Infanticide is morally acceptable in an
Eskimo’s environment.”
 However, this is not because the Eskimo
believes that it is right. If this is true, it is
true because of the nature of the extreme
circumstances.
The Allure of Relativism



We avoid uncomfortable
disagreements.
Everyone gets to be right.
There is no reason to argue or
criticize others’ beliefs.
Teaching Kids Relativism


Some kids tend to be intolerant of others
who are different.
We want kids to learn to be tolerant



An easy way of doing this is to teach them
that there is no right answer to how things
should be done. (Moral Relativism)
But this is logically incoherent.
Saying “Tolerance is better than
intolerance” implies moral objectivism.

We need to teach moral humility instead.
Moral Absolutes ?

THE PROBLEMS: (revisited)
Narrow Minded Moralism
 “Who’s to say what is right?”
 Cultural Differences Abound

Moral Objectivism

THE SOLUTION TO:
Narrow Minded Moralism
Reject moral imperialism and
teach genuine moral humility.
 It is only the fact that there is a
right answer that can make us
wary of getting it wrong.

Moral Objectivism

THE SOLUTION TO:
“Who’s to say what is right?”
ANSWER: You are!
 It is up to each of us to discover
what is right and wrong by careful
contemplation. (This isn’t easy.)
 There’s no person whose job it is
to decide moral questions, just like
there is no one in science.

Moral Objectivism

THE SOLUTION TO:
Cultural Differences Abound
First: Reasonable differences in
moral judgments are usually
explained by relevant
differences in circumstances.
 Second: Radical differences in
moral judgments can be
explained by realizing that
cultures are wrong sometimes.

Conclusion


Relativism denies our most
uniquely human capacity, our
capacity to determine what we
ought to do.
Only by accepting objectivism can
we make sense of the idea that
there is ever a good reason to do
anything.
So, how do we justify
moral claims?




We find common ground with
those who disagree (premises)
We use principles of rationality
(logic) to make inferences
We demonstrate that our moral
claims are justified by our shared
assumptions (premises)
(In other words: We construct
careful moral arguments.)
What do these careful
arguments look like?




Precise formulation of defensible
general moral principles
Careful attention to the relevant
empirical facts
Application of these general
principles through these facts
Ultimately, grounding these
general principles in a moral theory