Relativism: Cultural and
Ethical
Ethical Theory: Relativism
Relativism: the general philosophical theory that
states that there are no firm criteria for judging one
individual’s or one culture’s set of moral values,
principles, and guidelines of ethical conduct as
better than or more rational or superior to any
other.
●
Ethical Absolutism/Universalism: the general
philosophical theory that states that there is a
single moral principle (or single set of related
moral principles) in terms of which all cultural and
all individual values are to be judged.
●
Varieties of Relativism
Descriptive
Cultural Relativism: Different cultures do in fact have
different beliefs and values about how to judge particular
actions.
Normative
Ethical Relativism: Ethical values and beliefs are relative
to a particular culture or society and cannot be judged
outside that culture. Each culture’s values are “right” for
that culture.
Individual Relativism (“Subjectivism”): Ethical values are
relative to each unique individual. Whatever an individual
designates as the “right” values just are the “right” values in
virtue of having been so designated.
Evil Actions
Humane/Good Actions
-Giving a last meal and quick
death to a prisoner’s father.
-Taking a risk to bring water to
thirsty and starving prisoners.
-A guard takes risk to save the life
of a prisoner.
-Taking pity on others even when
you don’t have to.
-International attempts to save
innocents from death.
-Rudi Maserek
-”Red-Blonde Girl”
-Refusing the protect or help fellow
prisoner/escapee. p. 243
-Using other humans simply for
sport.
-The cruelty and lack of
compassion even for those who
have served you.
-The torture of young children in
the winter shortly before death.
-The “moral corruption” of the
camp workers.
-Stangl’s “macabre fakeries”
Stangl’s “moral unreasonableness”
p. 230-1
Arguments for Ethical Relativism
The “Cultural Differences” Argument
(1) Ethical (or individual) relativism is true because
different societies have different moral codes.
Clarifying Question: Do we mean the professed or
actual morality of a culture?
Objection 1: Why should “majority opinion” determine
what is moral or immoral?
Objection 2: If subjectivism is true, doesn’t this mean
that we cannot give moral praise or make moral mistakes?
Objection 3: “Cultural Differences Argument” is
logically invalid.
Validity and the “Cultural
Differences Argument” or CD
Premise 1: Different cultures have different moral codes.
---------------------(c) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are
only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
Valid Argument: Any argument whose structure is “truth-preserving”, i.e., whose
structure will guarantee a true conclusion provided the supporting premise or premises
are true.
Invalid Argument: Any argument whose structure is NOT “truth-preserving”, i.e.,
whose structure will NOT guarantee a true conclusion even assuming the supporting
premise or premises are true.
The premises of the CD argument concerns what people believe to be true.
The conclusion of the CD argument concerns what really is true.
A significant mistake in the cultural differences argument is that it attempts
to draw a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) from the mere fact
that people disagree about it.
1.
2.
All cats are mortal
Harry is a cat
-------------------(C) Harry is mortal
VALID
1.
2.
All cats are mortal
Mary is mortal
---------------------------(c) Mary is a cat
INVALID
Arguments for Relativism, cont.
The 'Anti-Arrogance' Argument
(2) Ethical relativism must be accepted as true if we are to
be tolerant toward others, especially those of different
cultures. It is arrogant to try to judge the conduct of other
people living in other cultures. We should instead adopt an
attitude of tolerance.
Possible Objection: Is this argument for Ethical relativism selfdefeating? Isn’t a commitment to tolerance, understood minimally as
not using force or the threat of force to change someone’s views, itself
a value?
A consistent ethical relativist must “tolerate” an intolerant society that
refuses to tolerate, and must (presumably) act intolerantly when in
those cultures.
Arguments for Relativism, cont.
The “Absolutism is False” Argument
(3)
Ethical relativism is true because ethical absolutism
must be false. In other words, there is no objective standard that can
be used to judge one societal code better than another so all ethical
judgments are relative to culture.
Objection: Analogy to Health.
No absolute or universal standard of health is needed to guide the
actions of healthcare practitioners. Why assume we need an absolute
set of values to judge actions and conduct?
Compare with the Ethical Pluralism of Ancient Ethicists such as
Aristotle.