Ethical Relativism
Introduction
Our system of morality is a mixture of principles (eg. Cruelty is wrong), obligations (eg. to keep promises), virtues (eg. honesty), duties (eg. not to harm anyone), rights (eg. to free speech), and more. It's our morality that we turn to when asking “What should I do?”, “What sort of person should I be?” or “How should I live?”We don't think of our morality as a purely local phenomenon. In fact we probably regard our morality as having universal application - to all human beings, at least with respect to the more fundamental parts of it. For instance, when it is said that it is wrong to torture and kill people this doesn't mean that the statement is true only in Australia, or perhaps all English speaking countries or only in the Southern Hemisphere. Torturing and killing people is wrong everywhere. All of this may seem fairly obvious to you but is in fact denied by those calling themselves ethical relativists. What is ethical relativism? John Ladd expressed it clearly:
“Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs. What is right in one society will be wrong in another society and may be neither right nor wrong in a third society.”Ethical relativism poses a fundamental challenge to our morality. Its main proponents are anthropologists and sometimes sociologists, although it dates back to the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras. Now, at first sight ethical relativism may seem plausible. We know from anthropological studies that moral codes may vary radically from society to society. For instance, there are societies which allow bigamy, human sacrifice, cannibalism, dowry killings, and so on. Although our morality would condemn these practices, who's to say that we're right and they're wrong? So perhaps ethical relativism is true. It seems surprisingly popular. Thus you often hear “What's right for you may not be right for me”, the point being that moral issues can't really be argued about and certainly not settled because of the inherent relativity of all moral judgements. Is ethical relativism true? To answer this the doctrine will have to be stated more precisely.
Clarifying ethical relativism
There are essentially three parts to ethical relativism; a descriptive claim, an analytical claim and a normative claim.- The descriptive claim: as a matter of empirical fact moral codes may vary radically from society to society.
- The analytical claim: the truth of moral judgements and principles is relative to the society or culture of which they are a part. So, for example we can't assert simply that cruelty is wrong, but only that cruelty is wrong in society X.
- The normative claim: on the basis of (a) and (b), it is never justified for people in one society to make moral judgements about the behaviour or practices of people in a different society.
I now want to consider three terms which are often confused in discussing relativism. These terms are “absolute”, “universal” and “objective”. Firstly, by “absolute” I mean true without qualification and for all time. If a principle is absolute then it can't be overridden even when it clashes with other moral principles. If, for example, human beings have an absolute right to life, then it is forever wrong to kill a person under any circumstances. Whether or not there are any moral principles are absolute in this sense is unclear, but I doubt it. In any case it is possible to believe that there are moral principles which are non relative without believing them to be absolute. It is enough for them to be universal. A principle is universal if it applies to all societies, though not necessarily for all time. In fact, if you think that principles can be non relative then they may not have to be universal. It may be enough for some given principle to be applicable to more than one society. The third term is “objective”. This is the most difficult to explain, but luckily we don't need it here. Roughly, when used in discussions about ethics, the term is best construed to mean impartial or unbiased. ie. not dependent on a person's tastes, opinions, feelings, etc. I don't think that ethical relativism threatens the objectivity of our morality.
Is ethical relativism true? Consider some objections to it.
Objections to ethical relativism
- The vagueness of the terms “society”: remember that ethical relativism is made up of (a), (b) and (c), the descriptive, analytical and normative claims. It's hard to say whether or not one or all of these are true without a clear idea of the meaning of “society”. Are Australia and New Zealand different societies? They're different countries but have enough in common to be the same society perhaps. What about Australia and England? Australia and the U.S.? Australia and France? Australia and Indonesia? One problem with this is that we group or classify nations in a number of different ways. Thus, English speaking, Anglo-Saxon, Christian or Muslim or Hindu, etc, Western, Third World, Democratic or Totalitarian or Theocratic, Post Industrial, Agrarian, European, and so on. Are societies with different languages, religions and customs but similar political, legal and economic systems the same or different societies? And of course many similar questions could be asked involving different combinations of basic ingredients such as religion, custom, politics, economics, kinship systems, history, language, law.
The point of this is not to force everyone to “define their terms” - a well known debater's trick. The point is this: relativists assert, in accordance with the normative claim (c), that there can be no moral judgements across societies. However, we simply have no idea what that means without a fairly precise notion of “society”. For example, are we in Australia entitled to make judgements about execution by beheading in Saudi Arabia or not? Presumably the answer to this depends on whether or not Australia and Saudi Arabia are different societies. Do they have to be absolutely different - have nothing in common at all - or is it allowable that there be some minor similarities? The reason why ethical relativism is so hard to understand is that, whereas (a), (b) and (c) seem all or nothing - black and white - the relevant notions of sameness and difference of societies and cultures is very much a matter of degree. Can people in society X make judgements about society Y? The answer to this seems to be either yes or no. However, the business of distinguishing between X and Y is simply nowhere nearly as clear cut as required by ethical relativism.
- Assuming a reasonably clear notion of society and culture we can ask:
To what extent do the moral codes of different societies actually conflict? Is this conflict as fundamental as it may first appear? Consider the example of the Bakhtiari, a nomadic people who live in northern Iran. Nomadic life is harsh. There is no agriculture or indeed any settlements containing hospitals, schools and so on, but simply a life almost constantly on the move. An old person who becomes too sick to move is abandoned and left to die as comfortably as possible. At first sight this appears to conflict sharply with our morality. Yet, what exactly is different here - the morality or the circumstances? The Bakhtiari are not callous. It is just that the survival of the group depends on migration. And a society without doctors, nurses, hospitals and nursing homes has different moral options. The Bakhtiari depth of concern for the aged may be no less than our own, and may even be greater. In fact the morality of the two situations - theirs and ours - may not be much different at all.
This example illustrates the point that when comparing societies, apparent moral differences may not be fundamental at all even where the behaviour and practices are radically different. What should we conclude about ethical relativism? The objections show that it is not an easy doctrine to understand and may not be as radical a doctrine as it first appears.
Some questions
- If ethical relativism were true what would that show about our own morality?
- What practical consequences would follow from the truth of relativism?
- If morality were to become more “globalized” would that falsify relativism?
For instance, if the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights were to become universally accepted throughout the world, would ethical relativism cease to be a problem?