The Challenge of Relativism
The first ethical theory we’ll consider is relativism. This is a very popular theory but also deeply flawed as well and it is because of these flaws that we’ll have to move beyond relativism to find an adequate ethical theory to base our moral judgments upon. Relativism is an ancient ethical theory and has its roots in the Greek philosopher Protagoras who once said ”man is the measure of all things.” What he meant by this was that each individual is their arbiter for right and wrong. Relativism can be seen at this individual level and still has adherents. In his 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind Allan Bloom wrote “there is one thing a professor can be certain of almost every student entering the university believes or says he believes, truth is relative.” So, this view is pervasive still. But, being widely accepted does not make a view correct. Let’s examine relativism and some of the problems with it.
As Rachels points out, relativism has several formulations:
Different societies have different moral codes.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code better than another’s.
There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.
Are these claims correct? The first seems to be a mere observation and a correct one at that. The others seem to follow naturally and when we think about it seems equally true. The main argument for the truth of relativism is based on the seemingly obvious claim that different societies have different practices and codes of morality. Just consider the examples Rachels gives such as the difference between the Greeks and the Galatians in how they deal with death. Or the differences between us and the Eskimos when it comes to infanticide. So, from these differences, it follows that there are no objective moral standards. There are several problems with this line of reasoning which we’ll consider in turn.
1. The premises do not support the conclusion.
2. Relativism implies that we cannot make moral judgments about our own culture or others.
3. Relativism implies that there cannot be moral progress.
4. There is no fundamental disagreement on moral values.
5. All cultures have some values in common.
6. Relativism is self-refuting.
Let’s look at each of these in turn. First, the argument for relativism is not based on sound logic. From the premise that different cultures have different moral practices, it does not follow that there are no objective moral principles. The flaw in this argument can be seen in the following example. Did you know that there are still some cultures that believe the earth is flat? There is still an organization called the Flat Earth Society! So, different cultures (and even individuals within a culture) disagree about the shape of the earth. But from this, it doesn’t follow that there is no objective shape of the Earth. This is nonsense. From the mere fact of disagreement, it does not follow that there is no objective answer. This is not only true for empirical questions like the shape of the Earth but also true for ethical questions as well.
The very disagreement we witness implies that there are objective standards. The question is simply what these are and how they can be justified. If ethics were only a matter of opinion and cultural belief what would be the point of disagreement? Disagreement only makes sense if there’s something objective to disagree about. But, relativism denies this.
From the perspective of relativism the mere fact that culture believes something makes it so. But, does believing something makes it so? Not the last time I checked. If it did I could believe I’m on the beach in Hawaii and it would be true. Unfortunately, life doesn’t work like this! You might respond to this by saying “well perhaps it’s true for you.” But what does this mean? What could it mean to say that something like this was true for me alone? We’ll have to consider this issue later when we address subjectivism in ethics.
A second problem with relativism is that it implies that we cannot make judgments about our own culture or other cultures as well. You might think this is a good thing. After all, who are we to judge that another culture is doing something immoral? But if we cannot judge other cultures then we must condone things like enslaving people, genocide, gross violations of human rights, etc. Are we prepared to say that the mere fact that culture believes these are right means that they are right and morally justifiable?
To see the problem let’s consider the fact that relativism implies that we cannot even judge our cultural practices. Around 1820 in this country slavery was practiced and even thought to be morally permissible by some. So, the culture said this practice was fine. Was it? Weren’t their people making well-reasoned arguments for abolition? If relativism is true then their arguments would have been for naught. They would’ve had no basis for the claim that slavery was (and is) immoral. This leads to the third problem with relativism, the denial of moral progress.
Take the slavery example again. I’ll also mention another example as well to help. In 1820 slavery existed in this country, now it doesn’t. Are we better off without slavery? Also, in 1820 women did not have the right to vote, now they do. Are we better off because of this? I hope you answered yes to both questions! But, consider these answers from the point of view of relativism. How can you say one situation is better? You can’t because this implies an objective standard by which to measure better or worse. But this is precisely what relativism denies. So, there can be no such this as progress in the realm of morality because progress implies the possibility of things getting better (or worse) which implies an objective standard.
Interestingly enough, the foundation for relativism that cultures have fundamentally different moral practices may be false. This may sound strange to say since all we have to do is look at a culture’s practices and we can see they are fundamentally different. Look at some Hindu countries where the people don’t eat cows even if they’re starving. Look at the Eskimos who practice infanticide. But, as Rachels points out there may be more to the story than these surface observations. Consider the Eskimos. Shouldn’t we ask why they do what they do? Shouldn’t we examine the entire context of their practice before we judge it? If we do this and consider for example the harsh environment and the fact that they do not indiscriminately kill babies we can see that their moral beliefs are not radically different from ours, only how they practice them.
The example of a culture that doesn’t eat cows provides another useful insight. As Rachels points out the difference here may not be their values but their beliefs. They share the same values as we do but because they have different beliefs, their practices are different. So we do have some moral principles in common after all.
And, for a complex society to exist, there must be some objective moral principles despite relativism’s denial of these. Rachels points to three in particular.
1. truth-telling
2. caring for the young
3. no indiscriminate killing
Every culture must have these values in common otherwise they couldn’t even exist. Sure, some people lie sometimes, some people do not adequately care for their young, some people kill others. But, the general principles hold for the majority of cases. If they didn’t we would likely not even be here!
What Rachels is arguing for here is what he terms a culturally neutral standard for judging right and wrong. This is the whole point of ethical theory to adequately formulate just such a principle. Rachels suggests a tentative first formulation as follows: we should ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people who are affected by it. This seems like a good first step and one we’ll build on throughout the book.
Still, some people are reluctant to abandon relativism. One argument is that relativism encourages tolerance. We should be tolerant of other individuals and cultures. But, look closely at this argument and you’ll see a problem. Tolerance is a moral value. By saying we should practice this we seem to be implying that it’s a universal principle. But remember, relativism denies these! So, the relativist is contradicting themselves. Another way of saying this is to say that relativism is self-refuting.
The basic idea of relativism is that there are no objective moral principles. But this claim itself is an objective moral principle. So, if relativism is true, it must be false!
Of course, we can learn something from the basic sentiment of relativism. It’s only when we take it to an extreme and use it as the basis for morality entirely that we run into trouble. Come to think of it, this problem of taking things to extremes might be the problem with many ethical theories. A wit once said “all generalizations are dangerous. Even this one.” Relativism offers a correction to moral absolutism but taken too far breaks down.
As Rachels points out, relativism has several formulations:
Different societies have different moral codes.
There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code better than another’s.
There is no “universal truth” in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times.
Are these claims correct? The first seems to be a mere observation and a correct one at that. The others seem to follow naturally and when we think about it seems equally true. The main argument for the truth of relativism is based on the seemingly obvious claim that different societies have different practices and codes of morality. Just consider the examples Rachels gives such as the difference between the Greeks and the Galatians in how they deal with death. Or the differences between us and the Eskimos when it comes to infanticide. So, from these differences, it follows that there are no objective moral standards. There are several problems with this line of reasoning which we’ll consider in turn.
1. The premises do not support the conclusion.
2. Relativism implies that we cannot make moral judgments about our own culture or others.
3. Relativism implies that there cannot be moral progress.
4. There is no fundamental disagreement on moral values.
5. All cultures have some values in common.
6. Relativism is self-refuting.
Let’s look at each of these in turn. First, the argument for relativism is not based on sound logic. From the premise that different cultures have different moral practices, it does not follow that there are no objective moral principles. The flaw in this argument can be seen in the following example. Did you know that there are still some cultures that believe the earth is flat? There is still an organization called the Flat Earth Society! So, different cultures (and even individuals within a culture) disagree about the shape of the earth. But from this, it doesn’t follow that there is no objective shape of the Earth. This is nonsense. From the mere fact of disagreement, it does not follow that there is no objective answer. This is not only true for empirical questions like the shape of the Earth but also true for ethical questions as well.
The very disagreement we witness implies that there are objective standards. The question is simply what these are and how they can be justified. If ethics were only a matter of opinion and cultural belief what would be the point of disagreement? Disagreement only makes sense if there’s something objective to disagree about. But, relativism denies this.
From the perspective of relativism the mere fact that culture believes something makes it so. But, does believing something makes it so? Not the last time I checked. If it did I could believe I’m on the beach in Hawaii and it would be true. Unfortunately, life doesn’t work like this! You might respond to this by saying “well perhaps it’s true for you.” But what does this mean? What could it mean to say that something like this was true for me alone? We’ll have to consider this issue later when we address subjectivism in ethics.
A second problem with relativism is that it implies that we cannot make judgments about our own culture or other cultures as well. You might think this is a good thing. After all, who are we to judge that another culture is doing something immoral? But if we cannot judge other cultures then we must condone things like enslaving people, genocide, gross violations of human rights, etc. Are we prepared to say that the mere fact that culture believes these are right means that they are right and morally justifiable?
To see the problem let’s consider the fact that relativism implies that we cannot even judge our cultural practices. Around 1820 in this country slavery was practiced and even thought to be morally permissible by some. So, the culture said this practice was fine. Was it? Weren’t their people making well-reasoned arguments for abolition? If relativism is true then their arguments would have been for naught. They would’ve had no basis for the claim that slavery was (and is) immoral. This leads to the third problem with relativism, the denial of moral progress.
Take the slavery example again. I’ll also mention another example as well to help. In 1820 slavery existed in this country, now it doesn’t. Are we better off without slavery? Also, in 1820 women did not have the right to vote, now they do. Are we better off because of this? I hope you answered yes to both questions! But, consider these answers from the point of view of relativism. How can you say one situation is better? You can’t because this implies an objective standard by which to measure better or worse. But this is precisely what relativism denies. So, there can be no such this as progress in the realm of morality because progress implies the possibility of things getting better (or worse) which implies an objective standard.
Interestingly enough, the foundation for relativism that cultures have fundamentally different moral practices may be false. This may sound strange to say since all we have to do is look at a culture’s practices and we can see they are fundamentally different. Look at some Hindu countries where the people don’t eat cows even if they’re starving. Look at the Eskimos who practice infanticide. But, as Rachels points out there may be more to the story than these surface observations. Consider the Eskimos. Shouldn’t we ask why they do what they do? Shouldn’t we examine the entire context of their practice before we judge it? If we do this and consider for example the harsh environment and the fact that they do not indiscriminately kill babies we can see that their moral beliefs are not radically different from ours, only how they practice them.
The example of a culture that doesn’t eat cows provides another useful insight. As Rachels points out the difference here may not be their values but their beliefs. They share the same values as we do but because they have different beliefs, their practices are different. So we do have some moral principles in common after all.
And, for a complex society to exist, there must be some objective moral principles despite relativism’s denial of these. Rachels points to three in particular.
1. truth-telling
2. caring for the young
3. no indiscriminate killing
Every culture must have these values in common otherwise they couldn’t even exist. Sure, some people lie sometimes, some people do not adequately care for their young, some people kill others. But, the general principles hold for the majority of cases. If they didn’t we would likely not even be here!
What Rachels is arguing for here is what he terms a culturally neutral standard for judging right and wrong. This is the whole point of ethical theory to adequately formulate just such a principle. Rachels suggests a tentative first formulation as follows: we should ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people who are affected by it. This seems like a good first step and one we’ll build on throughout the book.
Still, some people are reluctant to abandon relativism. One argument is that relativism encourages tolerance. We should be tolerant of other individuals and cultures. But, look closely at this argument and you’ll see a problem. Tolerance is a moral value. By saying we should practice this we seem to be implying that it’s a universal principle. But remember, relativism denies these! So, the relativist is contradicting themselves. Another way of saying this is to say that relativism is self-refuting.
The basic idea of relativism is that there are no objective moral principles. But this claim itself is an objective moral principle. So, if relativism is true, it must be false!
Of course, we can learn something from the basic sentiment of relativism. It’s only when we take it to an extreme and use it as the basis for morality entirely that we run into trouble. Come to think of it, this problem of taking things to extremes might be the problem with many ethical theories. A wit once said “all generalizations are dangerous. Even this one.” Relativism offers a correction to moral absolutism but taken too far breaks down.