What’s wrong with relativism?

Michael Lacewing

Descriptive relativism Moral codes differ from one society to the

next: Some believe slavery is permissible, some

don’t. Some enforce female circumcision, some

don’t Some hold that everyone should be treated

as equals, some don’t This is a factual claim.

Moral relativism There is no objective moral standard

independent of what societies endorse. There is no objective moral truth for all

people at all times. ‘Morally right’ = ‘right according to (some)

society’s moral code’ So we can’t say that a society’s moral

values or practices are objectively right/wrong.

Relativism and subjectivism

Relativism analyses morality as essentially socially.

Relativism is not subjectivism. Subjectivism makes morality ‘relative’ to

each individual person. According to relativism, society determines

there is a right answer for individuals within that society.

From descriptive to moral relativism

Descriptive relativism doesn’t imply normative relativism. Disagreement is not enough to abandon

truth Societies could make mistakes.

Societies are not trying to get at the ‘ethical truth’; instead ethical values and practices are part of a way of living.

Scientific v. ethical ‘truth’

Science: discovers how the one, physical world is

Ethics: there are many social worlds with different conventions, not one world which guides us towards agreement.

What would explain ethical ‘mistakes’ or getting the correct answer?

Tolerance Relativism does not imply tolerance. Incoherence:

1) there are no objective moral truths, so 2) you ought to respect other moralities But (2) states what is supposed to be an

objective moral truth! What if my society’s moral code

recommends intolerance?

Tolerance Why should I be tolerant? Why should I respect

other people’s views? Are the answers reasons for everyone to be

tolerant? Then there are these universal moral truths: it is

right to respect others, it is right to be tolerant Believing that there are universal moral truths

does not mean forcing these views on others. Especially if one of the universal moral truths I

believe is that tolerance is good! Of course, I may try to persuade you that I am right

– but what is wrong with rational argument?

Moral authority Does relativism entail that ‘anything goes’? If the ‘authority’ of morality is society, why

should we be concerned with what society thinks? This is different from the question: why are we

concerned with what society thinks? Perhaps we should be tolerant. But this has

limits – should we tolerate everything? Can we meaningfully condemn the practices of other

societies?

Condemnation and improvement

Some moral views rest on errors of fact. Three justifications for female genital mutilation:

If you don’t remove a girl’s clitoris, it will continue to grow

If a man’s penis touches a clitoris, this will kill him ‘Unnatural stimulation’ of a clitoris causes

epilepsy and other mental illnesses Slaves (whoever, wherever!) have lower IQs.

Condemnation and improvement

There can be objective improvements in rationality Becoming more consistent (applying principles

more broadly) Suppose it were true that slaves have lower IQs –

should all people who have lower IQs be enslaved?

Treatment of animals (pets v. laboratory experiments v. food)

Becoming more coherent (resolving tensions between principles)

Descriptive relativism and human nature

Different societies share many general principles and virtues E.g. prohibitions on killing, lying, theft Endorse care of the weak and courage

Different ethical practices reflect different conditions, not different principles

Aristotle: we all aim to achieve the best life We all live in some society, and will need similar virtues for

this Some societies endorse traits that don’t help people flourish

Relativism and human nature

Reply: There is no one ‘best’ life for people – the idea is culturally relative.

Not all societies believe everyone is equal, so don’t agree that everyone should be assisted to achieve the best life.

But are we confident enough to defend a universal framework within which there are a variety of acceptable answers?