Ethical Relativism
Ethical Subjectivism

Boss: “Ethical subjectivism, also known as
individual relativism, makes the claim that people
can never be mistaken about what is morally right
or wrong because there are no objective or
universal moral standards or truths, instead, there
are only opinions. It does not have to be backed up
by reasons or facts. What is right or wrong for one
particular individual is a matter of personal taste,
rather like our preferences for particular foods or
hairstyles.”
Complications

We don’t usually see the complications until
our inner certainty runs into someone else’s
inner certainty, but their inner certainty is
the opposite of ours! Then we have a
problem.
Moral Standards?

Boss: “The great majority of moral
philosophers
disagree
with
ethical
subjectivism. These philosophers maintain
that there are fundamental moral standards
by which we can judge people.”
Resistance

One approach to the problem is to simply
ask ourselves why we are resistant to
universal values, at least in the modern
Western world. The answer is that we hold
freedom as one of our greatest values and
we don’t want other people telling us what
to think or how to act.
Individualism

People are not supposed to conform to what
they are told is right and good, but they are
to struggle to find their own personal truth
and then live from that discovery rather than
from some other authority’s rulebook.
Tolerance

Boss: “Many people confuse ethical
subjectivism with an ethics of tolerance and
respect for others’ lifestyles - an ethics that
is often summed up by the phrase ‘live and
let live’.”
Contradiction?

“Tolerance is a universal moral principle.
The statement ‘live and let live’ implies a
universal duty to respect others, regardless
of how we personally feel toward them, and
a duty not to harm them either directly or by
interfering with their rights to pursue their
own interests. According to ethical
subjectivism though, universal moral duties
do not exist.”
Sociological Relativism

Boss: “Some people also confuse ethical
subjectivism with the obviously true
observation that individuals do hold
different views about what is morally right
and morally wrong.”
Learning from the Past

The vast majority of people used to truly believe
that slavery was right, that women were not as
smart as men, and that children were simply the
property of their fathers. But surely that does not
make it right and good. It also does not mean that
people holding these views were insincere. They
probably really saw the world in this way. By what
standard are we able to look at past values and see
that they were not as moral as once believed?
Moral Uncertainty

When someone comes to us for moral
advice and we simply tell them to do what
they know is right, we could be saying two
different things. On one hand, we could
simply be saying that whatever they decide
is right for them. This is relativity. But on
the other hand, we might simply be
acknowledging that we trust them and their
own integrity to do the right thing.
An Example

In medical experiments concerning a new
drug we know that some scientists think it
will work while others are doubtful. This
does not mean that both are correct. It just
means we have not figured it out yet. We
hold out hope that eventually we will know
whether a medicine will help us or not. This
same attitude of waiting to understand is
helpful in ethics as well.
Moral Responsibility

Boss: “Moral responsibility, in terms of
assigning moral blame or praise, becomes a
moot issue with ethical subjectivists
because there are no objective standards
against which to measure the morality of a
person’s actions; ethical subjectivism
therefore precludes passing judgment on
other people’s or even on our own actions.”
The Influence of Ideas

Boss: “Ethical theories do not exist in
abstraction. Ethical theories inform and
motivate our real-life decisions and actions.
They shape the way we define ourselves, as
well as our community and our ideas of
community responsibility.”
Romantic Sentimentalism

It is good to encourage children to discuss
moral issues and wrestle with these ideas.
But that is not the same as claiming that
their answers are equivalent to moral truths.
The Social Context

Boss: “Ethical subjectivism, by retreating
into pure inner or subjective feelings,
neglects to take into account the social
context that gives moral sentiments their
value in the first place. To remove morality
from the social realm is to condone isolation
and apathy in the face of others’ pain.”
The Kitty Genovese Syndrome

Much of ethics has to do with duties. That
is, I am called upon to act in a certain way.
If this calling is only a matter of whether I
personally relate to it or agree with it or not,
then it can lead to some of the many
problems we all face today living in our
modern society.
Critique of Ethical Relativism

Boss: “1. Ethical subjectivism incorrectly
assumes
that
moral
disagreement
necessarily implies that there are no
universal moral standards.”
Example: Parenting

Just because we are not sure what to do
does not mean we don’t have a sense of
right and wrong. You can see this
particularly well in issues around parenting.
Parents often know the values they want
their children to have but how to teach these
values is not always clear.
Critique of Ethical Relativism

Boss: “2. Ethical subjectivism is based on
the incorrect assumption that we cannot be
mistaken in our moral beliefs.”
Is There Moral Growth?

We allow for the fact that we can grow in
our morality, that we are capable of moral
development. This implies that there is a
moral good that we can move closer to and
this is only possible if there is something
beyond our personal opinion.
Critique of Ethical Relativism

Boss: “3. We do pass judgment on our
feelings and actions. At times, we judge that
it would be immoral to act upon certain
feelings or desires.”
Morality and Feelings

Boss: “If morality is the same as feeling,
then it makes no sense to restrain ourselves
from acting on our feelings. To restrain
ourselves only makes sense if we are using
moral criteria or principles that are
independent of our feelings.”
Critique of Ethical Relativism

Boss: “4. Ethical subjectivism is disastrous
for the weak and defenseless.” When you
think about it, you notice that if ethical
subjectivism were true then it would limit
morality to those who were actually able to
implement their desires. The more powerful
can use their subjective desire to hurt those
beneath them anyway they want simply
because they feel like it.
Partially Right

Boss: “Ethical subjectivists, for example, are
correct in noting that morality begins with the
individual experience and that these experiences
are sometimes at variance with one another.
Ethical subjectivists’ belief in the basic goodness
of human nature and that our sense of morality is
innate may also contain more than just a grain of
truth at least for the 96 percent of us who have a
conscience.”
Moral Community

Boss: “Moral experience and moral growth do not
end with our limited individual experience. Nor
are we as humans infallible in discerning the
moral voice within us. There seem to be other
voices, from both within and without, that
compete with our conscience or sense of morality.
For us to develop morally, our sense of what is
right and wrong must be nurtured, as well as
challenged, by our community.”
A Dangerous Theory?

We need to include our feelings, but we also
need to see beyond them. We have personal
and cultural blind spots and it is only when
we are helped to see them that we can
expand our awareness and let our circle of
compassion grow larger.
Cultural Relativism

Boss: “Subjectivists claim that individuals create
their own moral standards; cultural relativists
argue that moral standards and values are derived
from groups of people or cultures. Public opinion,
rather than private opinion, determines what is
right and wrong. There are no objective universal
moral standards that hold true for all people in all
cultures. Morality, instead, is regarded as nothing
more than socially approved customs.”
Celebrating Diversity

It is obvious that different cultures have different
ways of dressing, different foods, and different
customs. In a pluralistic world we can celebrate
these differences and enjoy the variety they bring
to our lives. But is cultural variety the same as
cultural relativism when it comes to ethics? Can
we not stand in judgment of some practices, such
as terrorism, simply because some people think it
is a valid moral option?
Excusing?

Boss: “Cultural relativism is not the same as
excusing certain cultural practices, such as
slavery, on the grounds that the people of
that culture sincerely believe that what they
are or were doing is morally acceptable.
Excusing entails granting an exemption or
pardon from wrongdoing.”
Prescribing and Describing

Boss: “Cultural relativists claim that these
practices were actually morally right for the
members of that culture.” If we don’t like it
then that only means we come from a
different culture with different social
customs. It doesn’t mean there is actually
anything wrong with female circumcision,
headhunting, or terrorism.
Tolerance or Intolerance?

Boss: “Cultural relativism is not the same as
respect for cultural diversity. Cultural
relativism is sometimes mistakenly
advocated on the grounds that it promotes
tolerance and respect for cultural diversity.
However,
this
is
based
on
a
misunderstanding of cultural relativism
since this very tolerance may promote
intolerance and violation of human rights.”
Critical Thinking Needed

There is a difference between trying new
foods and music and trying out headhunting
while on a study abroad program! How we
make these distinctions is what we will be
studying over the next few weeks. But it all
begins with being able to analyze our
thinking about values such as respect and
tolerance.
Respect Intolerance?

Why respect people unless it is because of
the feeling and thinking that states that all
people have a basic right to be respected?
How can we show respect for this basic
human right if we also tolerate policies that
disrespect people and their basic needs?
Sociological Relativism

Boss: “Sociological relativism is simply the
observation that there is disagreement among
cultures regarding moral values. Unlike cultural
relativism, sociological relativism draws no
conclusions; it makes no judgments about the
rightness or wrongness of different cultural
standards. Cultural relativists presuppose that
sociological relativism is true, but sociological
relativists do not necessarily accept cultural
relativism as true.”
Some Values Are Shared

There are many examples of how when first
describing different customs, it looked as
though very different moral values were
being discovered. A more in-depth
examination revealed that it was not so
different after all. No one approves of lying,
stealing and cheating.
Example: Eskimos

Boss: “It is now apparent that much of what
initially appeared to be disagreement about
basic moral standards may instead be the
result of situational differences.”
Example: Witch Burnings

Once people get their facts straight,
immoral actions often stop. In other words
people were not motivated to do things we
disagree with because they were evil but
because they misperceived what the good
was.
Context

Boss: “Acknowledging the influences of these
factors in shaping the particular moral practices
and values of a culture does not imply that there
are no underlying basic universal moral standards.
Universal moral standards, rather than determining
the exact content of a culture‘s moral values and
customs, provide general guidelines and set limits
upon the values and customs that are morally
acceptable within their particular context.”
Social Darwinism

Boss: “Morality, in other words, does not
exist in some abstract realm but is a part of
the natural world and is intimately linked to
our struggle for survival within it.” In other
words, morality is just another way to help
us survive.
Social Darwinism in Practice

The Social Darwinists used the success of
Western countries over other parts of the
world as proof that this is the way things
were supposed to be, since Western people
believed themselves to be better than other
people and that Western values were better.
Because they are better they can be imposed
on people who might not have or even want
these same values.
Anthropology

Boss: “In her landmark book Patterns of
Culture, published in 1934, Benedict
uncovered the inconsistencies in the Social
Darwinists’ claim that Western society is at
a higher level of moral, religious, and social
evolution. She claimed that Darwin’s
evolutionary theory does not imply that
morality is found in a greater degree in
civilized societies.”
No Objective Standards?

Boss: “Interpretation rather than analysis
stands at the top of the ‘thinking’ pyramid.
Our culturally shaped interpretations or
worldviews about what is right and wrong
are our reality. We thus have no grounds,
other than our own cultural norms, for
judging the morality of a practice such as
cannibalism.”
A Political Agenda

Boss: “By advocating cultural relativism,
anthropologists such as Benedict wanted to stop
imperialist practices and replace them with greater
respect for and tolerance of cultural differences. If
moral values are relative to each culture, then no
culture’s values can be superior to those of any
other culture. And if no culture’s values are
superior to those of any other, they reasoned, then
Western cultures have no justification for
imposing their morality on other cultures.”
A Trap?

They missed the fact that they were saying
that their values of celebrating cultural
diversity were better than the values of
Social Darwinism. Their values of
respecting ancient and tribal cultures were
better than imperialism. But how can they
say these values are better than other values
if they have no standard by which to judge
such values?
Moral Community

What is our moral community? It is the
group of people who receive our care and
concern. It usually starts with our family
and then moves in outward rings to include
our friends and larger community until it
stops. What often looks like different
moralities is simply the fact that different
people draw their circles in different ways.
Expanding Moral Community

The modern ecological movement is asking
that people enlarge their circles of care and
community even more to include all of
nature. Wars are usually the result of
countries putting the welfare of other
countries’ citizens outside the circle of
concern. In fact, they usually have to
demonize such people in order to get people
to stomach the violence of war.
Example: Slavery

Boss: “Respect for human equality and a
belief in justice were pre-Civil War
American values. These values were even
written into the U.S. Constitution. What has
changed between now and then is not the
basic moral principles but the definition of
moral community. Slavery could only be
morally justified by excluding the victims
of slavery from the moral community.”
Flexible Boundaries

The Jews were once a part of the moral
community of Germany, but then over a
relatively short time they were excluded. By
demonizing them and moving them outside
of the concerns of the moral community,
most Germans managed to ignore the great
evil that was happening in their midst.
Protecting the Status Quo

Boss: “The cultural definition of moral
community is, to a large extent, politically
and economically motivated. Cultural
relativism, in other words, supports a
definition of the moral community that
serves primarily to maintain the status quo.”
Why Explain?

Boss: “When a culture excludes or removes
a group of people from the moral
community, the culture often feels
compelled to justify its actions even to the
point of engaging in blatant doublethink.
Indeed, the group in power may even justify
the exclusion of another group as being for
their own benefit.”
Ibn Khaldun

Boss: “The customs of nomadic cultures such as
the Bedouins, Khaldun claimed, enhance good
traits such as courage, cooperation, and striving
for justice; the customs of sedentary and urban
cultures encourage immorality. Sedentary people
are more concerned with their own individual ends
and the indulgence in worldly pleasures. This
preoccupation, Ibn Khaldun suggested, leads to
moral evils such as injustice, mutual aggression,
greed, and lack of courage.”
Lame Deer

This belief that everything is alive animism - is an example of how our beliefs
influence our ethics. If we really believed
what Lame Deer is saying then we would
naturally treat the world of animals and
nature with more respect because they
would be included in our circle of moral
community.
A Universalist View

Boss: “Rather than dismissing a culture’s
values as relevant only to the people living
within that culture, a universalist view of
morality encourages us to listen to other
points of view and to attempt to understand
other people. We should also be willing to
analyze and, if necessary, revise or reject
our own cultural values in light of our new
understanding.”
Disillusionment

Cultural relativism took some heavy hits
from the 20th century. How philosophers
thought of the world before that violent
century has to be reevaluated in light of
what we now know.
U.N. Nuremberg Trials Charter

Boss: “According to the charter, we each
have an individual moral responsibility not
to take refuge in any laws or customs of our
culture that run contrary to universal moral
standards.”
Eichmann

Boss: “At his trial, Eichmann said that, although
he did initially have doubts about the
extermination program, these doubts were put to
rest when he realized that all his friends and
professional colleagues supported the program.
After all, he thought, ‘Who am I to judge?’
Nobody, not even his pastor, ever reproached him
for what he did in the performance of his duties.”
The Popularity Fallacy

If we allow our conscience to be informed
by the “crowd,” the majority, by what is
popular, then we might very well silence
our ability to grow in truth and wisdom and
develop our ethical values into allowing us
to draw our circles of moral community into
ever growing circles of concern and
compassion.
A Critique

Boss: “1. Cultural relativism is illogical.
Disagreement among cultures does not
prove that objective, transcultural moral
standards do not exist. To claim that they do
not exist is to commit the fallacy of
ignorance. At the most, we can adopt an
initial position of ethical skepticism
regarding the existence of objective moral
standards.”
A Critique

Boss: “1. Continued: By claiming that
sociological relativism (what is) implies
cultural relativism (what ought to be),
cultural relativists are guilty of committing
the naturalistic fallacy.”
A Critique

Boss: “2. Cultural relativism does not work in a
pluralist society. In today’s world, it is much
harder to accept the claim of anthropologists like
Ruth Benedict that there is general agreement
within each culture regarding moral values. In
modern cultures, pluralism is generally an
acknowledged fact: The definition of what
constitutes a culture can vary from subculture to
subculture and even from person to person, and
almost all of us are members of several cultures.”
A Critique

Boss: “3. Cultural relativism confuses custom
with morality. A custom that is inconvenient
or even offensive is not necessarily
immoral. Nude bathing, cross-dressing, and
the use of obscene language in our own
society, for example, are not necessarily
immoral even though they may offend some
people and run contrary to the norms and
even the law in some places.”
A Critique

Boss: “4.
People act more morally when
others are not around. Special groups,
rather than encouraging us to behave
morally, actually seem to inhibit helpful
behavior.
A Critique

Boss: “5.
Cultural relativism does not
correctly describe how we make moral
judgments. We do pass judgment on the
‘moral’ norms of our own and other
cultures. When we make these judgments,
we generally do so by appealing to
transcultural values such as justice and
respect for human dignity rather than to
cultural norms.”
A Critique

Boss: “6. There are moral values that seem
to exist in all or most known societies. The
degree of variance among moral values is
not as extreme as cultural relativists claim.”
A Critique

Boss: “7.
Cultural relativism is divisive and
creates an us/them mentality. Because cultural
relativism rules out the possibility of rational
discussion between cultures, when cross-cultural
values come into conflict and rhetoric or
persuasion fails, groups may resort to either
apathy and isolationism, when the other culture’s
values do not threaten theirs, or violence, when
another culture’s values or actions impinge on or
threaten them.”
Summary

Cultural relativism recognizes that culture
influences our ethics and how we see the world. It
also points to the values of respecting legitimate
differences and respecting other people with
different ways of going about things. It only
becomes a problem when it takes its version of
truth and says that it is the only version of truth.
Relativism is one piece of the ethical puzzle; it is
not the whole puzzle.