Meta-Ethics

Descriptive and Normative Moral Relativism

  • 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.