Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Today
• Follows the Stephen
Law reading
• Relativism
• Moral Relativism
basics
• Some available
positions
Relativism
• There are no independent
truths
• All truths are relative to
some framework or other
– E.g. Some person, culture etc.
• So, what is true for you
might not be true for me
• Time might seem
objective… but it’s
actually relative
The Great Mystica
• Logical scientific reasoning is
not the only system of
belief/knowledge
• Open your mind to what you
don’t yet understand!
• Judged on New Age standards,
astrology is a very sensible
practice!
• So, the claims made by
astrology are true (relative to
new age ways of thinking)
Interesting vs. Boring
Relativism
• Boring relativism doesn’t involve
contradictory ‘truths’:
– Dan likes tofu, so tofu is nice for
him
– John thinks tofu tastes like rotten
eggs, so it’s not nice for him
• Interesting relativism does:
– Dan believes in astrology, so it’s
true for him
– John thinks its rubbish, so it’s not
true for him
Is All Truth Relative?
• ‘All truths are relative’
could be absolutely or
relatively true
• If it’s an absolute
truth, then it
contradicts itself
• If it’s a relative
truth, then… what do
you think?
Is All Truth Relative? 2
• Dan: ‘All truths are relative
(including this one)’
• Smart Student: ‘So, whatever I think is
true is true… for me?’
• D: ‘Exactly!’
• SS: ‘So, if I think it’s true that “all
truths are absolute”, then it’s a
relative truth that “all truths are
absolute”… but that’s a
contradiction!’
• D: Hmmm… Errr… Oh dear…
• SS: ‘Sorry Dan, but “all truths are
relative” leads to a contradiction
either way… It’s just not true!
Moral Relativism
• There are moral truths, but
• There are no independent
truths about what is morally
right or wrong
• Moral truths are always
relative to some group
• E.g. our moral beliefs are
true for us, but not
necessarily for other groups
Olaf vs. Mrs Barbery
• Olaf: ‘It’s obviously true
that FGM is morally wrong,
because it causes permanent
damage to the recipients’
• Mrs B: ‘Whose “truth” is
this? You must judge the
morality of their actions by
their own moral truths.’
Moral Arrogance
• Mrs B: ‘It’s arrogant to assume
that you know the moral truth
for everyone and that they are
all wrong!’
• Olaf: ‘But, we should spread our
moral values because they are so
obviously right.’
• Mrs B: ‘If you were them, then
you would not think that it was
so obvious.’
Some Positions
• Moral relativist
• Moral absolutist
– Arrogant
– Humble
• Moral Nihilist
Arrogant Moral
Absolutist
• Position:
– There are one or more
universal moral truths that
can be used to determine the
morality of actions
– I know what they are
• Problem:
– How can you be sure
that you are right?
There is no test!
Humble Moral Absolutist
• Position:
– There are one or more
universal moral truths that
can be used to determine the
morality of actions
– I’m not sure what they are
• Problems:
– How can we even discuss this if
you don’t know what they are!?
– What could they even be?
Moral Nihilist
• Or ‘Ethical Nihilist’
• Position:
– All talk of morals is rubbish
because nothing is morally
right or wrong
• Problems:
– Some actions are clearly more
or less moral than others
– Is there any positive evidence
for moral nihilism?
Next Time
• Read
– James Rachels: ‘The Challenge
of Cultural Relativism’
• Get ready to discuss
– More objections to Moral
Relativism
James Rachels
vs
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Position
Are there
Comment
moral facts?
Moral
Relativist
Yes, but only
relative ones
The truth of moral claims
can only be assessed
relative to the relevant
group or framework
Moral
Absolutist
Yes, universal
ones, which are
(blah, blah)
It’s just obvious that I’m
right
Yes, universal
ones, but I’m
not sure what
they are
Maybe they are harm and
fairness, but who knows
No. So, stop
talking about
them
Your parents/
church/society made them up
Maybe, but stop
talking about
them…
…Because you can never be
sure what they are
(arrogant)
Moral
Absolutist
(humble)
Nihilist
(extreme)
Nihilist
(moderate)
Today
• Follows the James
Rachels reading:
– ‘The Challenge of
Cultural Relativism’
• Rachels
interpretation of an
arguments for
cultural relativism
• His general criticisms
of the theory
Cultural Differences
• Different cultures are…
well… different
• Importantly, many seem
to have different moral
codes
• Callatians eat, Greeks
burn
• Each think the other is
morally reprehensible
E.g. Inuit
• Offer wives to visitors
• Alpha male can drop by any
time he likes
• Grandparents are left out in
the cold to die
• Children (usually girls) are
killed at birth at the
parents discretion
Cultural Relativism
• A form of moral relativism
• Moral truths are judged
relative to the moral
code of the relevant
society/culture
• E.g. infanticide is
morally permissible for
Inuits because the moral
code of their society
allows it.
What Cultural
Relativists Think
• Societies have different moral
codes
• The codes cannot be rated or
compared because there is no
objective moral measure
• Only the moral code of the
culture in question can assess
what’s ‘Morally right’ in that
culture/society
• Judging other cultures’ moral
practices is arrogant
• we should be tolerant of them
The Cultural
Differences Argument
1) Different cultures have
different moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in
morality. Morally right and
wrong are dependant on the
relevant culture’s moral
code
- (what they believe to be
morally right and wrong)
Being Charitable
• Give your opponent as much
as possible
• Make their argument better
if you can
• Show why it’s still wrong
• Theoretically, this will cut
the debate short (with you
emerging the clear winner)
The (New) Cultural
Differences Argument
1) If cultures believe in
different moral codes, then
there is no objective
“truth” in morality
2) Cultures do believe in
different moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in
morality; it’s all relative.
Verdict on the Cultural
Differences Argument
• The argument does not
support the conclusion
• Therefore the argument does
not give good reason to
believe the conclusion
• But, the conclusion could
still be true
• Rachels goes on to discredit
the conclusion
Taking Your Opponents
Conclusion Seriously
• Philosophers are famous for
having their head in the sand
• Many of our thought experiments
are ‘unrealistic’ / ‘plain stupid’
• One way you can catch people out
is to imagine the (bad/absurd)
consequences of your opponent
being correct!
• Reductio ad absurdum
Taking Cultural
Relativism Seriously
• 3 absurd consequences:
1) “We can’t judge others”
2) “The standards of our
society dictate right and
wrong”
3) “There would be no moral
progress”
Judging Others
• “We can no longer say that
the customs of other
societies are morally
inferior to our own”
• Works for funerary practices
– Callatians vs Greeks vs us
• Not so well for:
– FGM, Slavery,
– Anti-Semitism
Deciding what’s Morally
Right and Wrong
• “We could decide whether
actions are right or wrong just
by consulting the standards of
our society”
• Dan: I’m worried that slavery is
morally wrong.
• Southerner: Don’t worry, we all
think it’s OK
• You can’t criticise other
societies moral codes or even
your own!
Moral Progress
• “The idea of moral progress is
brought into doubt”
• Women are no longer the
property of men
– They can now vote, own property and
even be PM!
– This seems like moral progress
• A cultural relativist must deny
many types of moral progress
– It’s just moral/societal change
Verdict on Taking Cultural
Relativism Seriously
1) If cultural relativism is
true, then moral progress,
comparison and criticism
don’t make sense
2) Moral progress, comparison
and criticism do make sense
c) Therefore, cultural
relativism can’t be true (it
contradicts obvious facts)
Is there Really Moral
Disagreement?
• Remember that difference in
moral codes between
cultures is a very important
part of the cultural
relativists argument
The (New) Cultural
Differences Argument
1) If cultures believe in
different moral codes, then
there is no objective
“truth” in morality
2) Cultures do believe in
different moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no
objective “truth” in
morality; it’s all relative.
Is there Really Moral
Disagreement?
• If we look closely, there may
not be
• E.g. Eating cows (grandma)
• E.g. Inuit baby-killing
– Men are the hunters and die
more easily
– Mums can only nurse/carry so
many kids at a time
– Adoption (if possible) first
The Common values
• Remember these are morals
at the societal level
– Without these, the societies
would fail
• Caring for offspring
• Truth-telling
• Murder is wrong
How Much Moral
Difference?
• So, it’s contentious how
much moral difference there
is
• Does this matter?
• Would a complete lack of
moral difference (at a deep
societal level) mean that
moral relativism is false?
Problems with Cultural
Relativism
• It’s main argument has 2
problems:
– Believing in a moral code isn’t
enough to make it true
– There may not be moral
cultural differences after all
• If CR is true, then we can’t:
– Compare, criticise or progress
morally
Lessons from Cultural
Relativism
• It reminds us about cultural
differences
– and helps us to examine the
peculiar cultural rules we follow
– Which may well be arbitrary (not
morally right or wrong)
• Be open-minded
– Some of your moral beliefs are
probably based on cultural
influences during your upbringing
Next Time
• Read:
– Gilbert Harman: ‘Precis of
Moral Relativism and Moral
Objectivity’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Probably the best simple
account of moral relativism
Gilbert Harman’s
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
Recap: Some Positions
• Moral relativist
– E.g. Mrs B
• Moral absolutist
– Arrogant e.g. Olaf
– Humble
• Moral Nihilist
– Extreme
– Moderate
Recap: Rachels’
Problems with CR
• It’s main argument has 2
problems:
– Believing in a moral code isn’t
enough to make it true
– There may not be moral
cultural differences after all
• If CR is true, then we can’t:
– Compare, criticise or progress
morally
Today
• Follows the Gilbert
Harman reading:
– ‘Precis of Moral
Relativism and Moral
Objectivity’
• Harman’s argument
for moral relativism
• Applying Rachel’s
reductio to Harman’s
MR
Relativistic Truths
• In some cases, what is true
is best understood in
relation to other truths
(background truths)
• Is it true that Bill Clinton
had sexual relations with
Monica Lewinsky?
• That depends on some
background facts:
– What counts as sexual
relations?
How a MR Interprets
Moral Judgments
• When someone says:
– It’s morally wrong for P to do D
– E.g. It’s morally wrong for Bill to
cheat on his wife
• The moral relativist takes them
to mean:
– In relation to moral framework M,
it’s morally wrong of P to D
– According to the moral framework
of the USA, it’s morally wrong for
Bill to cheat on his wife
Understanding Olaf?
• Olaf: FGM is always morally
wrong
• Mrs B: I take it you mean: ‘in
relation to Western moral
frameworks, FGM is always
morally wrong’
• Olaf: No, I don’t!
• Mrs B: Actually, yes you do.
Moral Diversity as an
Argument Against Moral
Absolutism (Again)
1) There are fundamental
moral disagreements
between groups
2) The best explanation for
this fact is that there are no
absolute moral facts, just
relative moral facts
c) Therefore, we have good
reason to believe that moral
relativism is true
Evidence of Fundamental
Moral Diversity
• Some differences in moral
frameworks can’t be
explained by differences in
situational factors or nonmoral beliefs
–
–
–
–
Killing (who can be killed?)
Meat-eating
Liberty vs equality
NZ: Civil unions, abortion,
homosexuality
Moral Absolutists’
Explanation for Diversity
• Some people are ‘not well
placed’ to discover moral
truths
• Perhaps societies that
encourage an open dialogue
on ethics are better placed?
• Perhaps ethics professors in
those societies are best
placed?
Harman’s Other Reply to
the Moral Absolutists
• There is a good reason why some
people mistakenly think that
there are absolute moral facts:
– Their own moral framework is
particularly salient to them
– The same goes for time/motion
• But it’s only salient to them
because of the culture they grew
up in
– The reason it’s so obvious to them
is totally arbitrary
Harman’s Reply to the
Moral Absolutists
• Saying that:
– ‘Some people are better placed to
discover absolute moral truths’
• Is the same as saying:
– ‘Some people are better placed to
discover the absolute time’
• Remember that time is relative;
there is no absolute time
• But, are moral truths the same
as truths about time?
Verdict on Harman’s Reply
to the Moral Absolutists
• Harman needs to give us a
reason to believe that
moral facts are like facts
about time (and not facts
about mathematics)
• The moral absolutists do
sound arrogant/bias, but
we do consult experts
about lots of kinds of
truth
• E.g. climate change
Moral Frameworks
• “A system of moral coordinates”, a
set of moral values, a moral code
• Analogy with the law
• Consider the non-moral facts of
the case in light of the moral code
• Because this is not easy, we get
mistaken moral beliefs
– That’s when your beliefs don’t
follow the moral code like they
should
Can Harman’s MR Deal
with Rachels’ Reductio?
• If MR is true, then can we:
– Compare? (better/worse)
– Criticise? (plain wrong)
– Progress morally? (internally)
• Certainly not to the extent
that moral absolutists want
to
– They want to challenge the
moral code itself, not just
moral beliefs
Sort of Summary
• So far we’ve had:
– An argument against moral
relativism (Rachels), and
– An argument against moral
absolutism (Harman), and only
– Some very weak arguments to
believe either position is true!
• Should we be moral nihilists
by default?
– Maybe we just need to think
more
Next Time
• Read:
– Russ Shafer-Landau: 3
Chapters from ‘What Ever
Happened to Good and Evil?’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Another opinion on this tricky
problem
Russ Shafer-Landau
on
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
More Positions
• Moral relativist
– Cultural relativist = (societal level)
– Moral subjectivist (individual level)
• Moral absolutist (Ethical
Objectivist)
– Arrogant
– Humble
• Moral nihilist
– Extreme (error theorist about
morality)
– Moderate
Today
• Follows the Russ
Shafer-Landau
reading:
– 4 chapters from:
‘What Ever Happened
to Good and Evil?’
• S-L’s arguments (in
defense of moral
absolutism)
• Summary of the topic
Ethical Objectivism
• Ethical Objectivism = Moral
Absolutism
• Conventional morality = moral
beliefs/standards used to govern
behaviour
• Moral truths that are
independent of conventional
morality do exist
• Those moral truths can be used
to assess the merits of
conventional moralities
Getting Morality
Wrong
• Some fundamental moral
codes are surely mistaken e.g.
– cultures that don’t give men and
women equal rights
– Slavery etc
• How are they mistaken?
• Either:
– Error theorist’s account or
– Ethical Objectivist’s account
Error Theory
(About Morality)
• Error Theorist = Extreme
Nihilist
• Every element of conventional
morality is mistaken
+ve) George Bush, slavers,
terrorists & misogynists are
wrong
-ve) So are saints, abolitionists
& freedom fighters
Ethical Objectivists on
Moral Error
1) If some people/groups have
moral codes that are incorrect,
then there must be some
independent moral truths to
judge them so
2) Some people/groups have moral
codes that are wrong e.g.
Hitler/Nazis, slavers etc.
c) Therefore, there are moral
truths that are independent of
conventional morality
Cultural Relativists on
Moral Error
• Internal Critique (allowed)
– From inside the culture
– Criticises moral beliefs by
reference to inconsistencies
with the existing moral code
– E.g. segregation in South USA
• External Critique
(not allowed)
– Criticises moral codes by
reference to independent
moral facts
How Changes in CRs’ Moral
Frameworks Happen
• (Not from Shafer-Landau)
• Most people believe that an act
is morally permissible
• Some of the other people
criticise, protest & try to
persuade the majority
• Criticisms can be ‘internal’ or
about the fundamental moral
code itself
• Most people change their mind, so
the moral framework changes
Is Moral Change A Problem
for Cultural Relitivists?
•
•
•
•
•
(Not from Shafer-Landau)
Maybe… Weird result:
30% to abolish death penalty
50% want to keep it
The 30% are wrong… until a
few more people change their
minds, then they are right
and the other wrong!
Consequences of Moral
Absolutism Being False
• Either our own fundamental
moral code is always right
or always wrong
– Error theory (extreme nihilism)
• Always wrong
– Moral relativism or subjectivism
• Always right
• Except under CR if you disagree
with the existing moral code, but
then you would be irrational
Moral Equivalence
• At the level of fundamental
moral code, most theories
imply moral equivalence
• Nihilism
– Extreme
(error theory)
& moderate
• Moral relativism
– CR & subjectivism
• ME = all moral beliefs/codes
are equally in/correct
Argument Against Moral
Equivalence
1) No one believes in moral equivalence
(because donating money to charity
is obviously better than organising
a genocide)
2) If no one believes in moral
equivalence , then some moral codes
must be inferior to others
3) If some moral codes are inferior to
others, then there must be an
objective morality to deem them so
c) Therefore, there are moral truths
that are independent of
conventional morality
Shafer-Landau vs Mrs
Barbery
• Mrs B: Every moral judgment is
necessarily made from that
person’s perspective
• Mr. S-L: Claims are always
issued from a person’s
perspective. But, it does not
follow from that truism that
everyone’s claims are equally
correct
• Mr. S-L: In all areas of inquiry,
the default assumption is that
one of us might be right
Another Argument Against
Moral Equivalence
1) In [nearly] all areas of inquiry, the
default assumption when there is a
disagreement is that one person
might be right
2) Morality should be treated like other
areas of inquiry
3) There is disagreement about
fundamental moral codes
4) The default assumption should be
that one person might be right
5) A good reason is required to divert
from the default assumption
c) Therefore, we need to be given a good
reason to believe in moral
equivalence
Moral Progress
• Is the abolition of
segregation a morally good
thing?
• If you answered ‘yes’, then
you are probably a moral
absolutist
• What makes you think it’s
morally good?
– These might be your absolute
moral truths
Personal Moral Progress
• New years resolution time! How
can I be morally better?
• Ethical Subjectivist:
– I’m already morally irreproachable
• Cultural Relativist:
– We’re already morally
irreproachable
• Progress is measured against the
existing standard
• Nihilist (Both): Shaddap! Who cares!
I wish I had friends 
Argument from
Dogmatism (against MA)
1) Moral absolutism leads to
moral arrogance
2) Moral arrogance is very bad
3) Moral relativism & nihilism
avoid moral arrogance
4) Avoiding very bad is very
good
c) Therefore, moral
relativism is very good
S-L reply to P1
1) Moral absolutism leads to
moral arrogance
• What about humble MAs?
• There is a fact of the matter
about physics, but humble
scientists are not arrogant
about their theories
• Because humble MAs and
scientists don’t invent their
‘truths’, then they should
not be arrogant about them
S-L reply to P3
3) Moral relativism &
nihilism avoid moral
arrogance
• Nihilism arrogantly
assumes everyone is
wrong
• MR makes everyone right
about morality, so
everyone could be
arrogant
Dogmatism
• S-L’s best point on
dogmatism/arrogance:
• “There is no better
check against hubris
and arrogance than the
recognition that we
are not the authors of
the moral law.”
Next Time
• Read:
– Julian Baggini: ‘Bank Error in
Your Favour’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Essay tips
– Summary of Moral Relativism
– Intro to ‘Why Be Moral?’
Summary of
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton
S-L’s Basic
Tactics
• Philosophy can =
reconciling our
beliefs with the
truth
• Assuming our beliefs are correct
– E.g. about Nazism being immoral
• And, so describes ‘the truth about what
is’ in a way that validates our beliefs
• But, sometimes philosophers conclude
that we should change our beliefs!
Position
Are there
Comment
moral facts?
Cultural
Relativist
Yes, but only
relative ones
Yes, but only
Subjectivist relative ones
Moral
Something is im/moral for a
culture iff that culture’s
moral code deems it so
Something is im/moral for
someone iff that person’s
moral code deems it so
Arrogant
Absolutist
Yes, universal
ones, which are…
It’s just obvious that I’m
right! They are XYZ…
Humble
Absolutist
Extreme
Nihilist
Universal ones,
I’m pretty sure
I’m not sure what they are, but
some acts are clearly im/moral
Moderate
Nihilist
Maybe, but stop
discussing
them…
No. So, stop
Your parents/church/society
discussing them made them up (moral error
theorist)
…Because you can never be
sure what they are
Summary: The Nature of
‘Moral Facts’
• What are ‘moral facts’ really
like?
–
–
–
–
–
facts about maths or logic,
facts about chemistry or physics,
facts about time,
opinions,
‘facts’ about the boogey man
• Can you come up with a good
justification for your belief?
Summary: Reasons to
Believe in a Position
• No position seems to be
supported by a sound deductive
argument
• But which position has the best
reasons to believe it?
• Remember to also consider the
consequences of the positions
being true
– These could be reasons not to
believe a position
DIY Best Position Table
• Read the readings and fill in the
whole table yourself
Position
Best reasons to Best reasons not
believe
to believe
Humble
Absolutist
No firm
commitments
required. Lots of
potential moral
facts to follow up
Extreme
Nihilist
Coolest position by Probably leads to no
far. (Plus cool mo
friends, and possibly
like Nietzsche)
jail time
You have to suggest some
or you are boring.
Why think that those ones
are the ones? – try to think
up counter-examples.