Universalism vs Relativism in Ethics — Quick Reference

Universalism vs. Relativism in Ethics

  • Central question: Are there basic ethical claims everyone could (or should) agree on? Can ethical reflection lead to right/wrong answers? Is there a moral fact independent of beliefs/cultures?

Normative vs. Descriptive Claims

  • Normative claims: what we ought to do (moral claims).
    • Example: "Abortion is always wrong."
  • Descriptive claims: what actually is (what people believe/do).
    • Example: "Wombats are mammals."
  • Distinction helps separate what is true about beliefs from what is truth about values.

Simple Subjectivism

  • Definition: moral truth is relative to an individual’s beliefs; a claim is true for you if you believe it.
    • Example: Mary: "Abortion is always morally wrong" → true for Mary if she believes it.
    • Example: Ralph: "Abortion is sometimes morally ok" → true for Ralph if he believes it.
  • Attractiveness: supports tolerance; right for me may not be right for you.
  • Problems:
    • Genocidal maniac could be right about their action if they believe it; intuitively wrong.
    • Moral disagreement would be like taste in ice cream: if true for someone merely by belief, disagreement collapses into subjective taste.
    • Conclusion: mere belief cannot justify actions; there must be reasons beyond individual belief.

Cultural Relativism

  • Definition: moral truth is relative to a culture’s beliefs; true for you if your culture believes it.
  • Motivation: vast diversity in moral beliefs and practices across cultures and history.
    • Evidence: burial practices, female circumcision, dietary norms vary; times/places show variation (e.g., Pew Global Morality data).
  • The Cultural Differences Argument: differences in moral practice imply no objective moral truth.
  • Advantages often cited:
    • Encourages tolerance of other cultures.
    • Appears to resolve disagreement by appealing to cultural norms.
  • Challenges:
    • Tolerance has limits (universal human rights examples: white supremacist violence, ISIS sex slavery).
    • Disagreement does not entail absence of universal truths; ethics is hard, and disagreement can persist even with objective standards.
    • Moral progress: cultures can improve; relativism struggles to account for genuine progress.

The Case Against Cultural Relativism

  • Driver argues cultural relativism is problematic despite attractions.
  • Three main criticisms:
    1) Tolerance has limits: must allow criticism of practices that violate basic rights; implies some universal norms.
    2) Disagreement does not entail there are no universal norms; ethics being hard can explain persistent disagreement.
    3) Moral progress: relativism undermines or cannot accommodate improvements over time.
  • Overall: while appealing, cultural relativism yields unattractive implications; universalism offers a more robust framework.

Wrapping Up / Key Takeaways

  • Major distinction: Universalism vs. Relativism.
  • Two relativist versions discussed: Simple Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism.
  • Each version faces specific problems (disagreement, justification of action, tolerance limits, moral progress).
  • Next questions: If universalism is true, what might universal norms be? Why should we care about them?