Relativism in Ethics.
First consider the claim that moral standards are relative to each individual. Many argue that this
kind of radical relativism is incoherent, because it means that every moral standard is equally
good. If I think it’s okay to rape and pillage, but you think it’s wrong, then all we can say is that
it’s right for me but wrong for you—end of discussion. It follows that nobody could ever be
mistaken about right or wrong; but if nobody can be mistaken then nobody can be right either.
You end up with moral nihilism, the position that there are no moral standards.
Should we take cultural relativism, the view that different societies have different moral beliefs,
more seriously? One reason is that this seems to be a lesson we have learned from
anthropologists that have studied the different belief systems of different societies. The relativists
not only claims that different cultures have different moral values, the claim is that there is no
authority independent from a cultural context that can say what is right and wrong. So, if I claim
that cannibalism is wrong, all I’m really saying is that in the culture I come from cannibalism is
unacceptable. There is no basis for saying anything more that it’s wrong for us but they, the
cannibals, think it’s okay in their society, so it’s right according to their lights.
However, the relativist position has a number of problems. 1) If we are critical of the moral rules
of a different culture we don’t just base our criticism on the fact that we have different rules in
our society, we are willing to give reasons why we believe they behave immorally. If you can’t
criticize any behavior as long as it conforms to the standards of a given society, then you
couldn’t be critical of moral standards within your own society either. But sometimes we are,
and sometimes traditions and norms are changed because we change our minds about what is
right and wrong. So just because certain standards are accepted in a given culture at some point
in time doesn’t mean those standards can’t be criticized and revised.
A further problem is that in a multicultural society there are different sub-cultures. So does the
relativist argue that each sub-culture has its own standards? What about controversial moral
issues where the population seems to be equally divided. If, according to some poll on Monday
51% is in favor of pro-choice, but according to a new poll on Wednesday 51% is in favor of prolife, then does that mean that abortion was morally permissible one day but morally
impermissible the next day after?
A further reason to reject moral relativism is that when we try to justify our moral beliefs, we
give reasons and appeal to general moral principles and values that aren’t specific to any
particular culture. Unless you are willing to claim that this is a meaningless practice, it seem that
you tacitly accept that reasons and universal principles can be binding across cultural divides.