Relativism: Three different kinds of moral relativism
1.
Cultural
or descriptive relativism
a.
“Society Does Relativism”—this is a descriptive
claim
b.
Different cultures seem to have differing moral
values.
i. Based
off the work of anthropologists
ii. (Examples)
c.
“Proponents of Society Does Relativism take the
differences in moral opinions between cultures as an argument for relativism
over moral objectivism. Since each
culture has a different morality, none is justified in claiming that its own
brand of morality is correct.
Therefore, there is no objective morality nor any moral absolutes. Morality is relative.”[1]
d.
Proponent: William Graham Sumner Folkways (1906)
i. “Sumner
makes three observations to support his view. First, he
observes that each culture has a unique set of moral values.
ii. “Second, he claims these moral values
are generated by the natural influence of pain and pleasure as people seek to
satisfy their base wants and desires.
The values create a complex system of customs that reflect notions of
decency, duty, propriety, rights, respect, reverence, and so on, and regulate
culture for the general welfare.
Laws are enacted as mechanical, utilitarian devices to enforce the most
vital mores.
iii. “Third, Sumner argues that each group
thinks its moral values are right and the others are wrong.”[2]
e.
Problems with cultural relativism
i. Failure
to distinguish between differences of value
and differences of fact
1.
Values: prescriptive
2.
Facts: descriptive
3.
Examples:
a.
Murder = unjustified killing of human beings
i. Hudson
Bay tribes: children strangled their own parents as an act of kindness instead
of letting them live to what they saw was an unproductive old age
ii. Underlying
value: it is noble to die for the welfare for the many
b.
Hindu women express the universal value of chastity
and purity through self-immolation (suttee).
c.
Contemporary abortion debate: often turns on a
conflict of facts; not values.
d.
“In India, cows roam free because Hindus
consider them sacred. In America
we eat beef. At first glance it
would seem we have conflicting values, but both of our cultures hold that it is
wrong to eat other human beings.
In America when Grandma dies, we don’t eat her, we bury her. In India, Hindus don’t eat cattle
because they believe the cow may be
grandma reincarnated in another form.”[3]
e.
“Genuine areas of value dispute are rare. To test for value differences, cite the
foundational moral rule one culture affirms and the other denies. True moral conflicts are those that
remain when all factual differences are eliminated.”[4]
ii. Not
a moral thesis at all but merely a descriptive analysis
1.
If even descriptive cultural relativism is a
fact this does not mean that there is no objective moral framework.
2.
“How does it follow that because each group
thinks it is right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality does not lead to
the conclusion that there is no moral truth. This confuses the epistemological issue (the accurate knowledge of objective values) with the
ontological issue (the existence of
objective values).”[5]
2.
Conventionalism
or normative ethical relativism
a.
“Society Says Relativism”—this is a prescriptive
or normative
claim
i. Goes
beyond anthropology and cultural observation
ii. Prescribes
how one should act
b.
“[T]eaches that all people ought to act in
keeping with their own society’s code.
What is right for one society isn’t necessarily right for another. People ought to do whatever their
‘society says’ to do.”[6]
c.
Culture is both the genesis and justification
for morality
d.
Problems with conventionalism
i. No
culture = no morality (example: 2 people on island with no culture between
them; okay to kill the other)
ii. This
view makes it impossible to criticize another society’s practices no matter how
bizarre or morally repugnant
1.
“If conventionalism is an accurate take on
morality, then governmentally sponsored genocide can only be quietly observed,
not judged. It cannot even be
opposed, because this view requires not only that outsiders remain morally mute
in the face of the Holocaust but also that Germans would have been wrong for
resisting. Instead they would have
had a moral obligation to participate in the murder of innocent people.”[7]
iii. There
are no immoral laws as long as the law is generated by the culture
iv. Morality
is thus reduced to mere power—“might makes right”
1.
The prophet Habakkuk speaks of the Chaldeans
this way: “Their justice and authority originate with themselves” and “they
whose strength is their god.”
Habakkuk 1.7, 11
v. Reformer’s
dilemma: wrong for people to attempt to subvert or overturn the cultures’
values to become more moral
1.
Consider: William Wilberforce, Martin Luther
King Jr., White Rose resistance in Nazi Germany
2.
“Moral reformers typically judge society from
the inside. They challenge their
culture’s standard of behavior and then campaign for change. But when morality is defined by the
present society’s standard, then challenging the standard would be an act of
immorality. Social reformers would
be made moral outcasts precisely because hey oppose the status quo.”[8]
vi. Is
normative relativism an absolute standard? If so, then a contradiction! As J. P Moreland argues:
“Finally, if one asks about the moral status of the principle of
normative relativism itself, then it seems that normative relativism is really
an absolutist position and not a genuine relativist one. For most proponents hold that one ought (in the robust, morally absolutist
sense of that term) to embrace normative relativism. Surely normative relativists do not wish to merely say that
it is true (morally obligatory) for normative relativists only, and that
absolutists are not morally obligated to be normative relativists. For they argue for their view and imply that one (epistemologically) ought
to embrace it and (morally) ought to live in light of it. In this case, normative relativism is
being offered as a moral absolute.”[9]
3.
Individual
ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism
a.
“I Say Relativism”—morality is determined by the
individual’s own tastes and preferences
i. Slogan:
“What’s right for me is right and what’s right for you is right.”
ii. Slogan:
“Who are you to say how I ought to live?
Don’t force your morality on me!”
iii. Slogan:
“Can’t we agree to disagree?”
Subtle implication: both our views are true from our different
perspectives.
* My response: “I agree that we
disagree.”
b.
“In ethical subjectivism, everything is a
private judgment call. All
morality is personal; none is public.
Every moral evaluation is a mere opinion, a personal preference.”[10]
c.
“Relativism’s Seven Fatal Flaws” (Chapter 7:
Beckwith and Koukl, Relativism)
i. Relativists
can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
ii. Relativists
can’t complain about the problem of evil.
iii. Relativists
can’t place blame or accept praise.
iv. Relativists
can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
v. Relativists
can’t improve their morality.
vi. Relativists
can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
vii. Relativists
can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.
