writing

Construct a short argument defending either Relativism or Absolutism (Topic 2.1). Please refer to the philosophical positions presented in your PowerPoint and Notes. Don’t rely on dictionary definitions (even if it’s a dictionary of philosophy) of “relativism” or “absolutism” as there are many different ways these terms have been used. Your argument should be at least one paragraph but no more than 4 paragraphs. 

You may receive up to 5 points for your essay and up to 2 points for your peer review of another student’s essay. The essay is due 4/7 and the peer review is due 4/9. For more information on how to submit your peer review, see the Module 2 Study Guide.

2.1 Is Morality Relative?

What is the issue?
We have a wide range of different moral beliefs.
Who’s to say who’s right?
Maybe there are no “right answers” to questions of right and wrong.

Relavist: Yes
Descriptive claim: societies differ greatly in their moral beliefs.
Claim about the nature of morality:
Morality is a set of rules.
Morality is taught.
No one can step outside of all moral systems to judge which is best.

Morality is a set of rules
Like baseball or etiquette.
Rules are created, not discovered.
Not natural but man-made.

Morality is taught
Not innate or instinctive.
Our moral beliefs depend on our upbringing.
Parents, society, peers.
What would happen if children were not taught morality?

Can’t step outside all systems
Like judging rules of different games from the outside.
Cannot objectively judge which is best.
When we are appalled by the values of another society we are judging it by our own standards.

Protagoras
One of the Sophists.
Sophists could argue either side of an issue; no “right” answer.
“Man is the measure of all things.”
Judgments of right and good are relative to human interests.
Each society sets its own standards.

Challenges to Relativist
Can’t we judge some moral systems as wrong? (e.g. Nazi Germany)
Is an individual who doesn’t conform to their society in the wrong?
Is moral progress possible?
Should we consider every individual’s moral beliefs equally valid? (moral relativism on the individual level)

Absolutist: No
We may not know whether an action is right or wrong but we can be sure it’s not both at the same time.
Relativism is incoherent.
If there are moral truths, they are universal.

Universal vs. Exceptionless
Universal: applies to everyone, regardless of culture, personal beliefs, or historical era.
Exceptionless: a characteristic of a rule, applies under all circumstances, no exceptions.
Absolutists can hold that moral truths are universal without being committed to exceptionless moral rules.

Example: Polygamy
Right: traditional, respects natural inclinations, promotes strong families.
Wrong: unfair, sexist, promotes jealousy.
Could make a case either way but it can’t be both!

Objective vs. Subjective
If something is objective, it’s a matter of fact, not opinion (e.g., New Mexico is a state).
If something is subjective, it is a matter of opinion (e.g., chocolate tastes good).
An objective truth can be controversial; people may have different opinions about it. But there is still a fact of the matter.

Plato
There are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
Not just “might makes right” or majority rule.
There are objective ideals (Forms) that can be discovered through reason.
Allegory of the Cave.

Challenges to Absolutist
If there are universal moral truths, why is there so much disagreement?
Can’t two people disagree yet both be right? (subjective/objective)
Is Absolutism compatible with tolerance?
Where do these truths come from?