Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism

There are no "moral standards" that apply to everyone (i.e. universally, or independently of what individuals think/what cultures accept).

Two main forms:

• Nihilism (no moral truths)
• Relativism (moral truths, but no universal moral truths)

Contradiction!

A special problem for the cultural relativist

What if you belong to multiple cultures?

Which moral code do you follow--how do you decide?

Relativist A: Eating animals is wrong.

Relativist B: Eating animals is perfectly fine.

These claims cannot be true at the same time--but (according to relativism) they are both true!

Another "fix"

Enter the "Ideal Observer"

• The standard becomes: what would a fully informed, fully rational, smarty-pants deem right or wrong?

A Way Out?

Yeah...there's a way out. But it's not pretty...

Hmmm...if that's the only standard, whatever the Ideal Observer says, goes. But isn't that a problem? What if the I.O. says that torturing people for fun is the right thing to do?

Is there anything to prevent the I.O. from making this claim, if the I.O.'s word is the only standard for ethics?

Next up: the Euthyphro Dilemma

The Way Out (this way madness lies...)

Here's the "way out": what we really mean when we say "X is wrong" is "I disapprove of X" or "X is wrong according to my culture."

Okay...so why is that a problem?

It means we never actually disagree about moral claims!

When we think we are disagreeing, we are really just reporting different convicitons to each other. If I think I have a genuine disagreement with you, I'm just wrong--I've mistaken the nature of morality.

But this doesn't seem right...

Let's act this out...

"Unfair" Grading Policy

"No Intrinsic Value"

No Questioning Commitments

Most of you were on board with the idea that my faux grading scheme was morally problematic.

So, here's the main question: Is that an objective judgment, or is only true because we're in the culture we're in, or is it only true because you all believe it is true?

For the relativists, things derive their value entirely from the "say so" of individuals (subjectivism) or cultures (cultural relativism). So, values can never change "for the worse" or "for the better"--there is no independent standard from which to make such a judgment.

This seems like a reasonble thing to ask: "Is what my culture endorses really right?"

But this does not make sense if relativism is true. (Can you figure out why?)

No moral progress

Another case

Relativism implies that the basic moral convictions of a society or individual cannot improve.

Really???

This means that if a culture moves from tolerance to intolerance, nothing "bad" has happened.

That seems implausible.

Is it morally acceptable to require women to be mostly covered when out in public (as is the case in some cultures)?

The Main Question:

Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism

Are "moral standards" objective?

Some Possible Responses:

Issues, Part I

Moral objectivism:

Moral Skepticism:

Ethical Objectivism: "true period."

Cultural Relativism: "true for my culture"

Ethical Subjectivism (individual relativism): "true for me"

There are moral truths, but they are "relative" to cultures.

An act is morally right if the culture approves of it.

There are moral truths, but they are "relative" to individuals.

An action is morally right if it is in accord with the individual's genuine moral convictions, or the values he or she truly endorses.

So, ethical truth is a matter of individual "say so."

Ethical truth is not a matter of anyone's or any culture's "say so."

An ethical (moral) truth is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not.

Personal sphere

So, ethical truth is a matter of cultural "say so."

Cultural sphere

The whole universe

There are some true “moral standards,” and they apply to everyone (i.e. they are universal), regardless of whether or not people think they apply.

Moral Objectivism:

A non-moral case of "objective truth"

An Parallel Moral Case of "Objective Truth"

When you make a moral claim, such as "torturing puppies for fun is wrong," you are not just reporting how you feel, or claiming that it is wrong for some people, but maybe not for others.

If moral objectivism is true, then if you disagree with a (true) moral claim, you are making an error--you have false moral beliefs.

Sam sincerely believes that torturing children for fun is not wrong.

Here's a plausible moral truth: torturing children for fun is wrong.

Sam is just wrong (if moral objectivism is true). No matter how much Sam might believe, or think, or hope that torturing children for fun is not wrong, it IS wrong. Even if Sam comes from a culture in which torturing children for fun is accepted, he still has a false moral belief.

Bob sincerely believes that he can survive indefinitely without breathing oxygen.

Bob is a regular human being.

Here's a fact about regular human beings: they need oxygen to survive.

Bob is just wrong. No matter how much he might want to believe that he does not have to breathe, he does. Even if Bob comes from a culture in which people do not believe you have to breathe survive, he still has a false belief about himself (and humans in general).

Infallibility and equivalence

Implications

Infallibility

Equivalence

Let's imagine (for the moment) that some form of ethical relativism is true.

What follows from this?

That is, if this is true, what else must be true?

If cultures (for the relativist) or individuals (for the subjectivist) provide the only standard for morality, then there is no "outside perspective" from which to favor one morality over another.

Thus, each morality is equally correct or true.

But this seems wrong: surely, cultures or individuals that genuinely endorse slavery are not immune to moral critique! Yet, according to the relativist, they cannot be wrong if their beliefs are based on genuine convictions.

If the only standard for whether something is wrong or right is whether it is in accord with your convictions or your culture's convictions, then you (or your culture) can never be wrong about these basic convictions.

Again, this seems wrong: do we really think that a culture of slavery is just as morally acceptable as a culture of personal freedom???