Moral Relativism

INTRODUCTION

We continue our look at moral nonobjectivism. The plan was to discuss both moral relativism and moral subjectivism because they are similar. However, there was lots of good discussion during Dinner and Dialogue and so we spent time only on moral relativism.

MORAL RELATIVISM DEFINED

We can define moral relativism as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a cultural standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from society." So what society says is good, is good.

William Graham Sumner, a sociologist, said this: "In the folkways [customs, traditions, and moral beliefs], whatever is, is right... 'Immoral' never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. [T]here is no permanent or universal standpoint by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticized."

EVIDENCE FOR MORAL RELATIVISM

If we were to defend moral relativism, how would we back it up? Here's some "evidences" for their case. As we go through them, see if and how we can possibly refute them.

God May Not Exist. Thus, if God has not established laws, there's nothing all cultures have to follow. Response: First, God does exist. But secondly, even if he doesn't it doesn't logically follow that a societal decision of morality is correct. In fact, without God to instruct us what is and is not moral, how are we to say that societal relativism is moral?

There Are No Moral Principles That All Societies Accept. If all societies have different ideas, how can there be an over-arching morality? Response: Whether they agree or don't (and you could argue that most cultures do agree on general ideas) it still doesn't follow that moral relativism is correct.

No One Can Prove Who's Correct in a Moral Dispute. So since we can't know what's moral, relativity must be true. Response: this "evidence" presumes that moral relativism is correct. However, if Christianity or some other morally objective philosophy is correct, then we CAN know who's correct in a moral dispute.

Tolerance is a Virtue. So we should be tolerant of other culture's ideas. Response: How do you know "tolerance is a virtue." What if my culture defines "virtue" as not a good thing? Besides, what's the virtue of being tolerant of wrong ideas like killing and rape if that's what a culture embraces?

People Should Conform to the Moral Code of Their Society. Response: according to who/what? You can't appeal to some idea of what one "should" or "shouldn't" do when you say that culture's can decide what's right for them.

PROBLEMS WITH MORAL RELATIVISM

Now that we've turned the "evidence" into potential problems, let's look at some points that are straight-up troublesome for the moral relativists view.

Relativism Violates Logical Laws. Consider these two statements: "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral." They are both opposite and logic would dictate that one has to be true and one has to be false. However, a relativist could claim that they could both be true in different cultures or both be false. This defies logic.

Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because you believe that cultures can/should determine their own morality doesn't mean that that's the way it is.

The Problem of Subgroups. The point here is that it's very difficult to know what to abide by if your a moral relativist. Do you abide by the U.S's morality? What if your state's morality is different? Or what if your city's morality is different or even your neighborhood? What do you do? This is a difficult matter for the moral relativist.

The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, moral relativism is immediately negated.

CONCLUSION

I think that after looking at both sides of moral relativism, we can simply conclude that it's not plausible.