Moral relativism: descriptive, cultural and philosophical forms

Program / Course 19: Modern Challenges / Lesson 4.3

What you will learn

• Distinguish descriptive relativism, cultural relativism and metaethical relativism.
• State the arguments relativists give, including the argument from tolerance.
• Identify the points in relativism that are true and the points that are disputed.
• Explain why disagreement about morals does not by itself prove that there is no moral truth.

The big idea

Moral relativism is a family of views, not one. The first, descriptive relativism, says that cultures differ in their moral beliefs, which is plainly true. The second, normative or cultural relativism, says that what is right is determined by each culture’s code, which is disputed. The third, metaethical relativism, says that moral statements are true only relative to a framework, which is disputed in a different way. The slide from the first to the second and third is the central mistake that this lesson helps a student spot.

Key terms

Descriptive relativism

The factual claim that different societies, and people, hold different moral beliefs.

Cultural (normative) relativism

The claim that an action is right if the culture approves it and wrong if the culture condemns it, and that no outside standard exists.

Metaethical relativism

The claim that moral statements have no truth apart from a framework such as a culture or a person’s attitudes.

Moral realism

The view that some moral claims are objectively true whatever anyone thinks.

Subjectivism

The view that moral claims express each person’s own attitudes, so that right means right for me.

Emotivism

The view that moral statements express feelings or attitudes and are not factual claims.

Tolerance

Putting up with practices one disapproves of, or respecting persons who differ. Relativists often present tolerance as a moral virtue.

Ethnocentrism

Judging other cultures by the standards of one’s own as if they were the only ones.

Background

Awareness of moral difference is old. The Greek historian Herodotus noted that peoples held strongly to their own customs, and the Sophists asked whether justice is by nature or by convention. In modern times, the study of cultures by anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict in the early twentieth century was used to argue that morality varies with culture. Benedict argued that each culture has its own pattern of values.

In the same century, philosophers such as A. J. Ayer and later J. L. Mackie argued that moral language does not describe objective facts. Mackie’s argument from queerness held that objective values would be strange entities, unlike anything else in the world. Many ordinary people, particularly young adults in surveys, say that morality is relative to the person or the culture, though they do not hold this consistently when they speak of slavery or cruelty.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Three claims that should be kept apart

The first claim is that people disagree about morality. This is a fact that no one denies. The second is that there is no objective answer to which side is right. This does not follow from the first, since people have disagreed about the shape of the earth, and there was an answer. The third is that because there is no objective answer, one should not judge other cultures. This is a further claim, and it is itself a moral judgment.

The argument from disagreement is therefore weaker than it appears. It must show that the disagreement is rooted in something other than ignorance, bias or different beliefs about facts. Defenders of moral realism point out that some disagreements about morals arise from disagreement about facts, such as about the status of a fetus or the effects of a policy.

Step 2: The best arguments for relativism

One argument is from the experience of history. Practices that were common and approved, such as slavery or the subjection of women, have been regarded as wrong in the West only recently. This suggests that moral beliefs are products of culture. A second argument is from tolerance: if no code is superior, there is no reason to impose ours on others, and the humility that follows is good. A third argument is from the difficulty of grounding moral facts in the natural world.

These arguments carry real force. The history of cultural arrogance, including by Christians who judged other peoples by their own habits, gives the call to humility its weight. A student should be willing to concede that moral certainty has often been misplaced.

Step 3: The difficulties

First, cultural relativism seems to make moral reform impossible. If right is what the culture approves, then those who opposed slavery within slave-holding societies were wrong by definition, and the abolitionists, civil rights marchers and prophets were mistaken. Yet most people think they were right. Second, the argument from tolerance defeats itself: it says that tolerance is right for everyone, which is an objective claim. Third, the idea of a culture’s code is vague, since cultures contain dissent and overlapping groups.

A further difficulty is that most relativists live as realists about some things. They condemn cruelty to children, genocide and fraud in terms that go beyond preference. This does not prove that realism is true. It does show that full relativism is hard to practice.

Step 4: What remains true in relativism

Several relativist points are sound. Customs differ, and many differences concern matters of custom, such as manners and dress, not of moral principle. It is wrong to confuse one’s own customs with the moral law. Moral understanding develops, and people can be sincerely wrong. Humility about application is wise, since good principles can be applied badly.

The Christian tradition has often made these distinctions. Paul argued that food laws and holy days are matters on which believers may differ, and that they should not despise one another (Romans 14). The Council at Jerusalem decided that Gentile Christians need not keep the whole law of Moses (Acts 15). The tradition separates what binds all from what varies.

1. Is this a claim about what people believe or about what is right?
2. Does the argument move from disagreement to the conclusion that no answer exists?
3. Would the speaker apply the principle to a case he finds abhorrent?
4. Is the disagreement about moral principle or about facts?
5. Does the argument for tolerance assume a moral truth?
6. Which moral claims does the speaker treat as non-negotiable?

Examples

Different perspectives

Relativist and anthropological views

Relativists hold that the study of cultures shows how deeply morality is shaped by context, and that the claim to universal standards has often been a cover for domination. They say that humility and respect for other ways of life are the proper responses. They would add that holding morals in a non-objective way does not make a person less committed to them.

Catholic

The Catholic tradition teaches natural law, that there is a moral order that reason can know, whatever the culture. Aquinas held that the first principles are known to all, while the application varies and can be clouded by custom or passion. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor defended universal moral norms against relativism.

Orthodox

Orthodox teaching grounds ethics in the life of the person with God and the church, and in the commandments and the example of Christ and the saints. It speaks less in the language of natural law, though the Fathers affirm a moral conscience in all people. Orthodox writers stress that the moral life is a path to transformation and not only a code.

Protestant

Protestants hold that God’s law is written in Scripture and in conscience (Romans 2:14 to 15), and that it is objectively binding. Reformed thinkers speak of the law written on the heart, and Lutherans of the law that accuses. Some Protestants, such as those influenced by situation ethics, have been criticized by others for yielding too much to circumstance.

Why it matters

Relativism is the moral attitude that most young people in the West absorb without examining. A Christian answer that only repeats rules will not reach them, and an answer that concedes everything gives up the gospel. A clear map of the three forms allows the student to agree with the part that is right and to give reasons against the part that is wrong.

Common misunderstandings

Knowledge check

Think it through

1. Which of your moral convictions would you hold even if everyone around you disagreed?
2. Where have Christians mistaken their customs for moral law?
3. What is the difference between tolerating people and approving of every act?
4. What do you say to a friend who says that morality is just a personal choice?

Independent assignment

A relativist’s best case

In your notebook, write 400 to 600 words presenting the best case for cultural relativism that you can build, as a thoughtful relativist would. Then write 300 words answering it. Mark each place where you were tempted to use a weaker version. Do not send it.

Further study

• C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Read book one, chapters 1 to 4, on the law of nature.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics Read for the classical alternative to relativism.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Moral Arguments for the Existence of God Read for the argument from moral facts to God and the objections.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics Read for an account of morals through character.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Use to check the move from disagreement to no answer.
• Romans 2:14 The law written in the hearts of Gentiles.
• Romans 14:5 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
• Acts 15:28 The council decides what burden to lay on Gentile believers.