The first variety of moral absolutism discussed is moral relativism. Two key types: descriptive moral relativism (often called cultural relativism) and normative moral relativism (normative cultural relativism).
Descriptive Moral Relativism (Cultural Relativism)
Definition: Describes an anthropological fact that across different societies and cultures there are wide variations in moral values, practices, and judgments.
Characterization: It is descriptive only; it does not prescribe how people ought to act. It simply notes what different cultures actually do or believe.
Significance: It is true as an observational claim, but it is "trivial" from an ethical point of view because it does not specify how we should evaluate those differences; more work is needed to derive norms from the descriptive fact.
Key takeaway: Descriptive moral relativism describes the landscape of moral diversity, but by itself it entails no normative conclusions about right or wrong.
Normative Moral Relativism (Normative Cultural Relativism)
Definition: Extends descriptive relativism to normative conclusions, arguing that all moral values are relative to a culture and that we have no right to judge another culture's moral values.
Core claim: It yields the normative conclusion that moral values are relative and that there is no universal standard by which to judge different cultures.
Williams’ argument (central critique): There is a logical incoherence at the heart of cultural relativism when you try to combine descriptively different practices with universal claims about moral right and wrong.
In particular, consider claims about right and wrong in dealings with other societies that use nonrelative senses of right and wrong; these clash with the relativist position that all values are relative.
Functional critique (from the Williams excerpt): Functional propositions that claim a society should survive by retaining its values often become tautologies if the society is defined by those very values. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition or circular (e.g., "A dog is a dog").
If you say a society must retain its values to survive, and you define the society by those values, you get a circular, tautological claim.
If you instead define survival in terms of individuals and descendants, many purported functional propositions about cultural survival cease to be necessary conditions for morality.
Broader concerns about identifying a "society":
If a culture must be identified to apply normative relativism, who gets to declare what counts as a society?
Sovereign citizens, groups within a state, colonial ties, or transnational identities all challenge clear boundaries of a culture.
Practical consequences and questions:
In cases like Nazi Germany (1940s), if normative relativism is true, should we respect the values of all cultures even when one culture is aggressive or domination is at stake?
If we must respect all cultures, what about conflicts where some cultures impose values on others?
Additional examples raised in the lecture:
Ghana and Ashanti: central government vs residual traditional Ashanti values; how functional propositions relate to moral judgments in post-colonial contexts.
The United States in the 1950s: Blacks in the Jim Crow era; how relationships between cultural groups raise questions for relativism when one culture's values oppress another.
The Aztec practice of human sacrifice (referenced via Diaz with Cortés in the 16th century): moral outrage by outsiders versus a relativist view that respects local values.
Central themes and inquiries:
The core problem: normative cultural relativism implies there is no ground to morally condemn other cultures’ practices from an external standpoint, yet we often feel strong moral obligations to intervene in extreme injustices.
Williams emphasizes the tension between a relativist stance and our intuitive/psychological reactions to universal moral concerns.
The tension also raises epistemological concerns about whether moral judgments can be truly culture-relative or if there are universal moral pressures that transcend cultures.
Homework prompt (as given in lecture):
Write roughly a paragraph identifying three major problems with normative cultural relativism.
Reflect on whether these problems justify abandoning normative cultural relativism, or if some version can be upheld with modifications.
Divine Command Theory and Theological Absolutism
Overview: This approach grounds morality in God’s commands; morality is objective and supernatural, determined by divine will.
Core claim: Morality is established by God’s commands; what is right and wrong is prescribed by God, not by human convention.
Example framework: Judeo-Christian context with the Ten Commandments and other divine directives.
The Ten Commandments are a foundational source of Western moral values and law.
Morality is not contingent on human culture alone but is rooted in a divine authority.
Related theological concepts discussed:
Original sin: humans are intrinsically sinful due to the Fall (e.g., Eve’s temptation and Adam’s act); everyone sins, yet forgiveness is available through confession and divine grace.
Interreligious breadth: across major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.), divine command ethics are a common framework, though not universally accepted across all cultures (e.g., Hinduism, Confucianism in other parts of the world).
Free will: the compatibility (or tension) between divine sovereignty and human free will is a recurring problem in theological absolutism.
Epistemological problems with theological absolutism (as outlined in the lecture):
Interpretation problem: Do words mean only one thing, or do they require interpretation within historical and linguistic contexts?
Reliability problem: How trustworthy is a text as a direct channel of divine instruction? What about the variability of claims attributed to divine messages across time and communities?
Authority problem: If a human or religious authority (the channel of God’s word) communicates God’s will, what if there are competing claims from different authorities?
Subjectivity problem: When multiple individuals claim to have heard divine guidance, how do we resolve conflicting dictates?
Theological absolutism and the Euthyphro dilemma (and related issues):
Euthyphro dilemma (historically attributed to Plato; discussed in the lecture in the form of a modern restatement):
Is something good because God commands it (divine command theory) or does God command it because it is good (goodness independent of God)?
Implications:
If goodness is arbitrary and simply commanded by God, then moral law could change if God’s will changed, undermining the objectivity of morality.
If God commands what is good because it is good, then moral standards exist independently of God, challenging the notion that morality is grounded in divine will.
Additional epistemological challenges to divine command theory mentioned in lecture:
Problem of interpretation and translation of sacred texts.
Reliability and authority issues: who interprets God’s will if there are divergent revelations or interpretations?
The broader question of how to know God’s commands with certainty in a plural world where many religions claim divine guidance.
Summary questions posed by the lecturer:
Which epistemological problem is the biggest obstacle to theological absolutism: justification of God’s goodness, or the problem of an all-powerful God issuing arbitrary commands?
How do we reconcile divine command ethics with human free will and moral responsibility?
Looking ahead: The lecturer hinted that next topics will include ethical naturalism; students were encouraged to reflect on the epistemological issues raised and prepare for further discussion.
Key Concepts to Remember (Glossary-esque Snippets)
Descriptive moral relativism: Moral variation across cultures; does not prescribe judgments.
Normative moral relativism (normative cultural relativism): The claim that all moral values are relative to culture; implies non-judgment of other cultures.
Descriptive vs normative distinction: Observational vs prescriptive.
Tautology: A statement that is true by definition or circular (e.g., "the society must survive because it must retain its values").
Sovereign citizens: An example used to explore boundaries of what counts as a culture and who gets to determine its values.
Nazi Germany in 1940: Used to question the implications of respecting all cultural values in the face of aggressive coercion.
Ashanti and human sacrifice: Used as a case study for cross-cultural moral judgments.
Aztec human sacrifice: Read through the Diaz narrative to illustrate moral outrage vs relativist judgment.
Divine Command Theory: Morality grounded in God’s will; commands are the basis of right and wrong.
Original sin: The theological claim about humanity’s intrinsic fallenness.
Euthyphro dilemma: The philosophical problem of whether God’s commands make things good or whether things are good independently of God.
Epistemological issues in theology: Text interpretation, reliability, and authority problems when deriving morality from divine sources.
Quick Discussion Prompts (for exam prep)
Explain the difference between descriptive moral relativism and normative cultural relativism with examples from the lecture.
Summarize Williams’ three main criticisms of cultural relativism and explain why each poses a problem for normative relativism.
Describe how normative cultural relativism uses the concepts of tolerance and non-discrimination in practice, and why this may conflict with its universality claims.
Discuss how the Aztec human sacrifice example is used to illustrate potential tensions in cultural relativism.
Outline the main epistemological problems associated with theological absolutism as presented in the lecture.
State the Euthyphro dilemma and discuss its implications for divine command theory and the status of objective morality.
Consider the question: If God commands what is good, does that make morality arbitrary? If good is independent of God, what grounds divine authority?
Reflect on whether normative cultural relativism can be saved by reforms, or if it should be abandoned altogether, based on the three major problems discussed.
Connect the debates on moral relativism to contemporary issues such as international human rights, colonial histories, and cross-cultural ethics.
Note on Next Topics
The lecturer indicated plans to begin looking at ethical naturalism in the upcoming week, with the return of ideas from the previous assessments.
Students were reminded to participate in weekly planner discussions and to complete the homework assignment linking back to normative cultural relativism concerns.