Absolutism and Relativism |
Return to Metaethics menu
|
|
|
There are some things that the vast majority, if not all people, consider to be wrong, such as murder or rape. However, there are some things people don't always agree on, such as the issue of abortion or whether a war was just, and we are aware that there are some things that have been considered wrong or right depending on the culture or era, such as nudity, slavery or homosexuality.
The issue of ethical relativism or absolutism asks the question whether some things are always wrong or right, regardless of the time, place, culture, etc. (absolutism), or whether we can only say that something is wrong from our point of view (relativism)?
The issue of ethical relativism or absolutism asks the question whether some things are always wrong or right, regardless of the time, place, culture, etc. (absolutism), or whether we can only say that something is wrong from our point of view (relativism)?
|
Think about various types of good and bad behaviour and consider where they belong in the diagram above. Anything that is always good belongs in the far left (blue) section, anything that is always bad belongs in the far right (red) section. Anything that can be sometimes considered good and sometimes bad goes in the middle.
Click play or forward for suggestions
|
Survey:
|
Worksheets & slides |
|
|
| ||||
|
James Rachels has identified what he perceives to be the key weakness in cultural relativism. He suggests an argument along the following lines:
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes. e.g. here we could think of Herodotus (2) Therefore there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. |
James Rachels
|
“From a logical point of view … it is not sound. The trouble is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently. This conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.” (Elements of Moral Philosophy).
In other words, relativists are trying to argue from how people see things to how things actually are, but that’s a logical mistake. Disagreement itself does not mean that there is no objective truth.
In other words, relativists are trying to argue from how people see things to how things actually are, but that’s a logical mistake. Disagreement itself does not mean that there is no objective truth.
Philosophy Bites
|
|