Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-4hcbs Total loading time: 0.155 Render date: 2021-11-29T09:56:02.779Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

What Is Moral Relativism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

Abstract

The main aim of this paper is to advance, clarify, and defend a definition of relativism. On the definition, relativism does not contrast with absolutism, is not the same as pluralism, contrasts with universalism and nihilism, and is compatible with both moral objectivity and moral subjectivity. Advantages of the definition are noted, but the bulk of the paper is devoted to detailed discussions of the concepts that figure in the definition or are entailed by it. Such concepts include those of a moral code, of conflict between moral codes, and of a convention.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rachels, James, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill, New York: 1993), 20Google Scholar.

2 Pojman, Louis, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA: 1995), 26Google Scholar.

3 Harris, C.E., Applying Moral Theories, 3rd edition (Wadsworth Publishing, 1997), 21Google Scholar.

4 Rosen, Bernard, Ethical Theory: Strategies and Concepts (Mayfield Publishing, 1993), 94Google Scholar.

5 Barcalow, Emmett, Moral Philosophy: Theory and Issues (Wadsworth Publishing, 1994), 39Google Scholar.

6 Mackie first advanced his ‘Error theory’ in ‘A Refutation of Morals’, Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy 24 (1946): 7790CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and later updated and forcefully argued substantially the same thesis in chapter one of Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Penguin Books, 1977)Google Scholar. Drawing upon Mackie, Robinson, Richard advanced a similar theory in ‘The Emotive Theory of Ethics’, Aristotelian Society Supplement vol. XXII (1948): 79140CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see especially 83–84. There are difficulties in even interpreting Mackie's theory, however. For example, if ‘This is right’ is false, ‘This is not right’ would seem to be true. But if so, ‘This is not right’ would, presumably, not be a moral judgment, for all are false. Cf. Harrison, Jonathan, , ‘Mackie'sMoral Skepticism”’, Philosophy 57 (1982): 173191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Critics of the Error Theory include Edwards, Paul, in chapter III of his The Logic of Moral Discourse (The Free Press, 1955)Google Scholar, and, among a number of others who take aim at Mackie's later statement of the theory, Jonathan Harrison, op. cit.

8 See, for instance, Brandt, Richard, Ethical Theory (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959)Google Scholar chap. 11. Brandt's discussion of relativism is informed with his own Qualified Attitude Method for justifying moral judgments, and his terminology is slightly different from mine, but the point is essentially the same.

9 See, for instance, McKinnon, Barbara, Ethics, 2nd edition (Wadsworth Publishing, 1998), 1415Google Scholar: and DeMarco, Joseph P., Moral Theory (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996), 80Google Scholar (DeMarco, however, basically favors relativism); Rachels, op. cit, 23–25; Harris, op. cit., 19–20.

10 Brandt, op. cit., 283–284.

11 Lewis, David, Convention (Harvard University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

12 That said, a game-theoretic conception of a convention, even if not specifically Lewis's, has proven very attractive to moral relativists. Harman, Gilbert, for example, embraces it in Chapter 9 of his The Nature of Morality (Oxford University Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

13 Millikan, Ruth, Language: A Biological Model (Clarendon Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Gilbert, Margaret, On Social Facts (Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

15 Gilbert, op. cit., 377.

16 On my view, conventions needn't be social. ‘Desert island’ conventions, imposed only by oneself and only on oneself, are a real possibility. See also two paragraphs hence on the metaphysics of conventions.

17 That said, however, a behavioral regularity or a repeated pattern of behavior counts as a convention in a derivative sense, on my view, if it is in accordance with and the result of the establishment of a convention in the basic sense.

18 I focus only on paradigmatically positive conventions, commands, and fiats in what follows, for simplicity's sake.

19 The only discussion of the ‘… to be done…’ locution that I know of is Chapter XIV of Harrison, Jonathan's Our Knowledge of Right and Wrong (George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971)Google Scholar. On the basis of what, not too long ago, would be called its logical grammar, Harrison seems to locate the construction half-between value judgments and imperatives, just as I do. (The chapter also contains interesting discussions of the ‘must be/may be done’ and the ‘is enjoined by a rule’ locutions.)

20 And once again my view is closer to Gilbert's than to the others’, though it differs from hers in that, and because, I don't take conventions to be inherently social.

21 If this is correct, the contrast between the natural and the conventional isn't as sharp as it may at first appear, for the conventional would then itself be natural. As far as morality is concerned, it would also seem to imply that in some sense, morality is natural – even if it is conventional.

22 For the sake of full disclosure, I should add that, the possible evidence of this paper notwithstanding, I'm not a moral relativist. I labor here to serve clarity, fairness, and progress on the issue.

23 My thanks to Teddy Shim and the editor of this journal for a number of useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

What Is Moral Relativism?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

What Is Moral Relativism?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

What Is Moral Relativism?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *