Ethical Relativism

Module 9

Ethical Relativism

Sample Cases

• Ancient Greeks vs Callatians

Ethical Relativism (cont.)

• The claim that there is no objective moral standard of right and wrong, and that moral values are relative to a person’s cultural or individual background, or to a certain situation.

Types of ethical relativism

Analysis of moral concepts

Cultural relativism:

• ‘X is right’ = ‘My society approves of X.’

• ‘X is wrong’ = ‘My society disapproves of X.’

Determinants of moral values:

Cultural relativism

■ Customs

■ Tradition

■ Language

■ Ideology

■ Politics

■ Religion

■ Anthropological & sociological concerns

■ The need for common moral codes within a nation/culture

■ The value of tolerance in international politics

So why believe in cultural ethical relativism?

First argument: diversity of moral codes

■ Structure of the argument:

■ Case 1:

• The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.

• Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong, but rather, a matter of opinion.

■ Case 2:

• The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral.

• Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong, but rather, a matter of opinion.

■ After generalization:

• Different cultures have different moral codes.

• Therefore, there is no objective ‘truth’ in morality. Right or wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

■ We are not always certain about the truth of our own moral beliefs.

Example:

• I cannot say whether liberal-conservatism is the best political ideology even if I am one.

■ Just in case that we feel certain that a moral claim is true, we still can conceive that it is not objective.

■ Therefore, we have no right to say moral rules are universal or absolute.

Third argument: situational differences

■ We tend to be more tolerant of people’s behaviour because of their exceptional situations.

Examples:

• It seems less objectionable to eat dogs in the time of famine.

• Killing in the time of war is not always wrong.

■ Different cultures have different ‘existential conditions’.

■ Therefore, our moral rules cannot be applied in a different culture.

Consequences of cultural relativism

■ One cannot criticize the moral practices of other societies.

■ Cultural/social norms become the basis of moral judgment.

■ There is no moral progress.

■ We ‘should’ be tolerant to other societies’ moral practices if they do not harm us.

Problem with relativist reasoning

■ Can we conclude that ‘X is so-and-so’ cannot be true or false simply because people disagree about the truth of the statement?

■ Examples:

• The earth is flat.

• Aliens exist.

• Women are second class citizens.

• I am Batman!

■ Seemingly conflicting behaviors can in fact be motivated by the same moral belief/value.

■ For example:

• Collatians believed that eating their fathers was right because they thought this could preserve their fathers’ souls.

• Greeks believed that burning their fathers’ bodies was right because mother nature was the best place for dead persons to go to.

• It follows that both their actions were motivated by their respect for the dead persons.

• Therefore, their actions are based on the same moral value!