Arguments for Moral Relativism
This section of the site surveys the philosophical arguments that can be offered in favour or moral relativism. Three arguments will be considered: the argument from disagreement, the argument from flexibility, and the argument from tolerance.
The Argument from Disagreement
The argument from disagreement is the argument that the fact of moral disagreement implies moral relativism. If we look at the world around us, we find that different people and different cultures have different, in some cases radically different, moral codes. If there were one true morality then we would not expect to find this; rather, we would expect to find individuals in agreement about morality, and a cross-cultural consensus on moral issues. The fact of moral disagreement thus implies that morality is a product of personal opinion or culture, that there is no one true morality.
The Argument from Flexibility
The argument from flexibility is the argument that it is only moral relativism that can explain why different people in different situations have different moral duties. For any proposed moral rule (e.g. don’t kill, or don’t steal), there appear to be exceptions. Killing in self-defense, or theft in order to feed one’s starving family, are perhaps acceptable. The dogmatic view that there are absolute moral rules therefore seems to be too simplistic; we should accept that morality varies depending on circumstances, that it is relative.
The Argument from Tolerance
The argument from tolerance attempts to establish that moral relativism is true on the basis that the alternative--moral absolutism--is intolerant. We ought to be tolerant, the argument runs, but to morally criticise other cultures or individuals is intolerant. We should therefore recognise that moral criticism of others is inappropriate; we should become moral relativists.
|
