Moral Relativism and Its Effects
By Lena Dominici
The French Philosopher Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) wrote: “believe me, Eugenie, the words “vice” and “virtue” supply us only with local meanings. There is no action, however bizarre you may picture it, that is truly criminal; or one that can really be called virtuous. Everything depends on our customs and on the climates we live in. What is considered a crime here is often a virtue a few hundred leagues away; and the virtues of another hemisphere might, quite conversely, be regarded as crimes among us. There is no atrocity that hasn’t been deified, no virtue that hasn’t been stigmatized.”
Relativism may be defined as the position that moral judgments are true or false relative to either cultural or individual standards and not to objective or universal standards. It is different from moral absolutism, which states that a moral truth exists. We presently live in a world mired by notions of moral relativism.
I – What is moral relativism: history and theory of moral relativism
Ancient Greece and Early Modern Era
Moral absolutism, the ethical belief that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of the context of the act, was first challenged in fifth century Greece. The opposing idea was that moral beliefs are influenced by conventions, and these vary greatly between societies. The historian Herodotus gives the anecdote of Darius, King of Persia, who summoned the Greeks and asked them if they would be willing to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. They replied they would not for any money in the world. Later, Darius asked some Indians of the tribe called Callatiae, who do eat their dead parents’ bodies, if they would ever consider burning the bodies, as was the custom among Greeks. “One can see by this what custom can do” writes Herodotus. He draws the conclusion that this story vindicates the view some acts may be right for some and wrong for others, depending on their individual conceptions of morality.
The Sophists were also associated with relativistic thinking, notably Protagoras who asserts that “man is the measure of all things”. However, this view was quite uncommon and moral relativism hardly flourished, as Plato and Aristotle both defended forms of moral absolutism. Ancient Greek philosophers acknowledged moral diversity, but more often under the form of moral scepticism, which states that there is no moral knowledge (rather than moral truth is relative to a culture).
Spinoza, in the early Modern era, claims “good” and “evil” are not intrinsic values: “As far as good and evil are concerned, they indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves, nor are they anything other than modes of thinking, or notions we form because we compare things to one another.” According to the philosopher, the terms “good” and “evil” should be understood in an analogous manner to “healthy” and “unhealthy”: their value depends on what is either good or bad for me.
Moral relativism was dormant during the Christian hegemony in Europe. Morality was based on absolute principles, such as “thou shalt not kill”.
Modern Age
Around 1568, Montaigne (1533-1592) writes “On Cannibals”, where he criticizes Europeans who think that they are morally superior to American Indians. Montaigne writes that “each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in” (Montaigne, p. 152).[1]Montaigne hints at relativistic ideas, but was not a relativist.
John Hobbes (1588-1679), in 1651, argues rational beings devise moralityto obtain mutual advantage to make social living possible. This view paves the way for moral relativism as it implies moral principles should be considered according to how well they serve their purpose, rather than being right or wrong.
Nietzsche’s thought has a relativistic flavor. His famous sentence “God is dead” seems to imply it is no longer credible to believe in an objective justification for moral claims.
By stating that “there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena”, Nietzsche embraces a form of perspectivism (Beyond Good and Evil, 108).
These philosophers prepared the ground for moral relativism, which grew more important in the twentieth century due to discoveries in cultural anthropology. Edward Westermarck (1862-1939), a Finnish philosopher and anthropologist, was one of the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism in his book “Ethics are Relative”. Westermarck points out differences in belief among societies, which, according to him, prove there are no absolute beliefs. He argues for ethical relativism by claiming there is no empirical basis for objective standards in ethics.
II – How moral relativism affected the current conventional Western view of ethics (politics and international relations)
Today, the debate over moral relativism is not an abstract discussion of interest only to philosophers. The debate has implications for the social sciences, politics, and international relations. Moral relativism is a way of thinking that has become increasingly popular.
Post-colonialist thinking, which has grown over the past fifty years, has led to the feeling that one cannot be in a position to judge others.
Moral Relativism, Ethics and Finance
For over half a century, we have stripped ethics from finance. There is no place for ethics in Modern Finance Theory. Over the past decades, the view that finance and ethics must be separated hardened. There is a lack of recognition of ethics in finance, which reflects not only the perception of many people in and out of the business world, but also the way many would like to continue to perceive business and finance. What is the consequence of moral relativism in finance? If moral truth only depends on a culture or on an individual, then “anything goes”, and finance can be considered an amoral (i.e. non moral) subject which has as its purpose profit maximization .
Most people know ethics in finance is valuable (even those in the Chicago school of business). After the 2008 Financial Crisis, we are now at a new place in finance, where its practices are questionable. Better theories, which incorporate ethics, are needed. Finance theorists and some in business ignore ethics and philosophy as the culture of profit maximization is now dominant. Yet, there are signs of change as many business schools now offer courses in ethics and there are many meetings in business ethics where business people are invited.[2]
Morals in a Post-Truth Era
Post truth politics are defined by a political culture in which debate is framed by appealing to emotions rather than details of policy. Factual rebuttals are ignored, truth is of secondary importance. In 2016, “post-truth” was chosen as the Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year due to its prevalence in the context of that year’s Brexit referendum and U.S. presidential elections. Post-truth politics are dangerous as truth is not a priority anymore.
Post-truth politics have an impact on ethics: if all truth is relative, then all morality becomes relative as well, since the rejection of absolute truth leads to the elimination of absolute morality. If there is no truth, how can there be any moral truth? In his book Moral Relativism, social theorist and professorSteven Lukes explores the emergence of moral relativism and defends the necessity of moral judgement. According to Lukes, it seems that ‘’there is a new explicitness about inventing and actually lying without embarrassment’’[3].
The UN Commission on Human rights on Moral Relativism
In 1947, the American Anthropological Association submitted a statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The paper criticized the moral objectivism of the United Nations that some viewed as an attempt by the West to impose its values on other societies in the name of universal human rights. The article aims at summing up the issues faced during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The American Anthropological Association presented three principles:
- “The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences.”
- “Respect for differences in cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered”
- “Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole”.[4]
The article takes on the perspective that cultural relativism is the appropriate principle when discussing human rights. The statement caused controversy amongst the members of the American Anthropological Association since many members did not agree with the principles stated. This statement sparked debate among philosophers and anthropologists in the universalism-relativism debate. Universalists believe that there are principles that are embraced by all human beings.
Immigration – Moral Relativism as a Critique of Assimilation
How should societies with large immigrant populations deal with the problem of multiculturalism and relativism? To what extent should the practices of the immigrants be accepted, even when they seem to be in conflict with the values of the receiving country? These questions become ever more urgent with increasing immigration. In 2011, France decided to ban face covering, including the niqab, a veil for women that some Muslim view as required by Islam. Those supporting the ban argued that sexual equality and freedom of expression are universal and should be defended. However, critics say the French ban on face covering expresses a form of cultural intolerance, which relativism claims to counter.[5]
However, how to deal with immigration is more a question of what to tolerate rather than a reason to embrace moral relativism. Both concepts are sometimes equated, but they are not the same.
Difference Between Moral Relativism and Tolerance
Moral relativism and tolerance are different concepts. Tolerating something means there is something one does not accept, but one does forbear from intervening. According to Steven Lukes, “it is the inhibition that goes with something that you forebear – that’s what I think toleration is. And that seems to me to be the opposite of what relativism is.”[6]Relativism seems to be a “relaxed attitude” where no belief can be judged to be more correct than another. “Toleration, rather, incorporates the judgement alongside the prevention of interference.”
Tolerance can be defined as deciding not to interfere with actions that are based on moral judgments one rejects, when the disagreements cannot be rationally resolved. Does moral relativism support tolerance? Many people think it does, but philosophers generally think it does not. Moral relativism is the view that there are moral disagreements: it entails nothing on how one should react towards these disagreements. Furthermore, if one supports moral relativism, one cannot claim that tolerance is an objective moral truth. Therefore, tolerance being a relative truth according to the relativist, he/she cannot promote it when dealing with different cultures.
Moral objectivism also does not imply intolerance or imperialism: regarding a culture as morally wrong does not entail that one should interfere with it.
III – Philosophical Argument Against Moral Relativism
The argument from cultural diversity, suggesting what is morally right and wrong is relative to culture, looks like this:
- Different cultures hold different sets of moral values and no moral values are the same throughout all cultures
- If different cultures hold different sets of moral values and no moral values are the same throughout all cultures, then moral rightness or wrongness is relative to culture
- Hence, moral rightness or wrongness is relative to culture[7].
This argument is valid: this means the premises entail the conclusion. A premise is a proposition in an argument. However, it is not sound: some of the premises are false.
Premise 1 states that no moral values are the same throughout all cultures. Some moral values are accepted by the international community, for example peace or preventing harm when possible. Even if there is great cultural diversity, it might be exaggerated. There is a common core of shared moral values, such as friendship or courage. The origin of the existence of these shared moral values is they are necessary for society to flourish. Without valuing courage and punishing murder, societies would be jeopardized. To illustrate this point, consider some nomadic cultures that have accepted infanticide as morally acceptable, whereas others reject it as a moral wrongness. However, those who perform infanticide might be motivated by the idea that they lack the resources to support the child. Their action is thus motivated by the concern for the wellbeing of the community, a moral value that is accepted in other cultures where infanticide is considered as murder.
However, one can argue that these examples are not convincing and there may be some culture that does not view promoting peace or preventing harm as a moral value. The difference in values, in this case, is only apparent: the core moral value, to protect the well-being of the community, is shared by the different communities.
Let us examine premise 2: it seems the fact that different cultures hold different sets of moral values and no moral values are the same throughout all cultures does not entail that moral right and wrong is relative to culture. Diversity does not logically entail moral relativism, nor does it make moral truth a falsehood. In other words, the fact there are different cultures with different moral values does not prove there is no objective moral truth.
Furthermore, relativism also implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. This is problematic for moral relativism. In fact, it seems clearly wrong to claim that Nazism and the killing of Jews during World War II was morally right according to the culture in Germany at that particular time. Accepting this moral wrong because of moral relativism based on culture is dangerous as it leads to indifference. If we cannot judge and moral rightness depends on certain cultures, then “anything goes”. Moral relativism leads to moral paralysis and indifference.
Findings in evolutionary ethics, led by Harvard’s Primate and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, also support the claim that every society shares some basic commitments. An internet-based study of moral intuitions of people from all over the world supported the idea there is a “universally shared moral faculty” (Mark Hauser, the laboratory’s director) common to all humans and rooted in our evolutionary heritage. [8]
Moral relativism is an old concept but it hardly flourished until 19th century. Today, moral relativism seems to be a prevalent view in Western ethics, affecting politics and international relations. In post-truth politics, emotions are more important than right and wrong. It is important to remember that moral relativism and tolerance are two different concepts. Moral relativism can be dangerous since it leads to moral paralysis and indifference. Pluralism should be an opportunity to learn and develop our moral theories rather than claiming that absolute knowledge is an illusion.
To read more on moral relativism, see:
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/problems-of-moral-philosophy
https://www.jashow.org/articles/worldview/moral-relativism/the-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism/http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-we-have-moral-relativism-todayhttp://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/problems-of-moral-philosophyhttp://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-we-have-moral-relativism-today
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/morals-in-a-post-truth-era/19612#.WWzFsmU0eqA
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_relativism.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
http://www.livius.org/articles/person/herodotus/herodotus-7/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#H1
[1]Montaigne, Michel de. “On Custom” and “On Cannibals,” in The Complete Essays of Montaigne, trans. Donald M. Frame. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. (First published in 1580.)
[2]http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/ethics-101/value-of-financial-ethics
[3]http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/morals-in-a-post-truth-era/19612#.WY23kGU0eqD
[4]American Anthropologist, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 541-542
[5]http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
[6]http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/morals-in-a-post-truth-era/19612#.WYGHTmU0fq3
[7]https://sites.google.com/a/centre.edu/philosophy/ethics-political-theory/twoargumentsformoralrelativism