The document discusses the debate between moral absolutism and relativism. It defines absolutism as the view that morality is absolute, universal and not dependent on personal or cultural contexts. Relativism is defined as the opposite view that moral values are relative to contexts like cultures, individuals and situations. The document examines arguments for both views and their limitations. It concludes that a purely absolutist or relativist position is difficult to maintain and that some universal moral principles with justified exceptions may provide a better framework.

1. ABSOLUTISM vs.
RELATIVISM

2. Do you think morals are
absolute or realtive? Why?
Discussion Question

3. Is morality absolute or relative?
The meaning of absolute
Absolute means variously perfect, complete, certain. Not
limited by restrictions or exceptions. Not to be doubted or
questioned.
However, it is difficult to prove an absolute supernatural
being exists or the presence of absolutes (laws) in nature, let
alone “natural moral laws.”
The meaning of relative
Relativism: Values are relative to time, place, person,
situation, etc.; no values are absolute or independent of
cultures and peoples. What’s right for you may not be right
for me. Mild-respect each other’s moral views. Strong view
of anything goes.
Individual perception of morality. No one person is more
moral than another.

4. Cultural
Absolutis
m
Cultural
Absolutis
m
Cultural
Relativis
m
Cultural
Relativis
m

5. Cultural relativism
Studies by anthropologists reveal wide
variation in customs, mores, practices, etc. as
evidence of its theory.
Anthropological “facts”-
1) Studies of modern and primitive cultures
show extreme variation in customs,
manners, taboo, moralities and attitudes.
2) Moral beliefs and attitudes are absorbed
from cultural environments. We internalize
(for the most part) what’s socially
accepted/sanctioned by our cultures.
3) People in different cultures tend to believe
that their morality is the only one true

6. Cultural absolutism
Ultimate moral principles underlying the various moral
standards and rules don’t vary culturally. i.e. All value
human life, but differ in protecting and approving killing.
“Facts”-
Similar moral principles exist in all societies, e.g,.
prohibition on murder, truth telling, etc.
All peoples have similar needs. Survival, eat, shelter,
etc.
Similarities in situations and relationships across
cultures, e.g., families, brothers and sisters
relationships, participation in family, religion, arts and
languages.
Similarities in sentiment, jealousy, emotion, love, need
for respect, etc.

7. Do you think morals are
culturally absolute or
culturally relative? Why?
Discussion Question

8. Evaluation of these theories
Moral relativism
Because cultures disagree does not mean that a
particular belief cannot be right or wrong.
A belief learnt or accepted by a culture doesn’t mean it’s
true or false, or truth is relative only to specific
societies.
Moral absolutism
Similarities of principles in societies does not suggest
that the principles are valid or the existence of
absolutes. Because people and situations exist or
behave in certain ways tells us little about what should
or ought to be the case.
Anthropologist shows us varied human cultural behavior.
but doesn’t prove either case nor what’s moral.
It appears that if absolutism is true then relativism is
false and vice versa.

9. Propositions and truth
Propositions and states of affairs
Propositions are true or false statements
regarding states of affairs. States of affairs
are occurrences, events or happenings that
either occurs or not. They cannot be true or
false.
Are there any absolute truths?
Truth is not dependent or contingent upon
our ability to know at a given time. Truth is
based on whether state of affairs occur.

10. Types of propositions
Analytic propositions
Logical truths – law of non-contradiction, true by definition of
terms. Ex: “No circles are squares,” “all triangles are three sided.”
Internal sense propositions
Propositions that assert something of our internal state. True by
experience.
How you feel at a given moment cannot be denied as false (if you
are honest).
Empirical propositions
State of affairs that occur in the external world. True by evidence
of the senses.
Moral propositions
Propositions that have moral import, e.g., abortion is evil.
Generally, but not always, these propositions contain words like
should, ought, right, good, etc.

11. Emotive Theory
If some propositions are absolutely true by virtue of
logic or experience, are moral propositions ever
absolute?
Some claim that morals are non-cognitive or
“emotional” and have no basis in fact.
Problems with the emotive theory
John Hospers has pointed out discrepancies. Moral
propositions can have:
purpose or intention
effects of propositions on hearers
actual meaning
If a moral proposition can have these attributes, then
not all
moral propositions are solely emotive. Emotivist theory
exaggerates its claims.

12. Moore’s naturalistic fallacy
If we say moral propositions are not any
different from empirical propositions we are
committing the “naturalistic fallacy,” i.e,
trying to get an “ought” from an “is.”
Descriptive “is” and the prescriptive “ought.”
However, some moral propositions can be
clearly and logically inferred from empirical
propositions (example of AIDS).

13. Moral propositions as types of empirical propositions
Perhaps moral propositions are empirical
propositions with value judgments.
Normative moral statements
Some possibility that “he is a good man” could be
thought similar to “that is a green table?”
Prescriptive moral statements
Can prescriptive moral claims be thought true or
false? Some prescriptive non-moral statements
(chess example) appear to assert something about
reality, i.e., are true or false.
Propositions against killing human beings
Could we make some case for moral propositions?
Perhaps propositions against killing human beings
is “best case scenario.”

14. Problems with moral propositions
Tension between true propositions and human
action and between propositions that conflict. But
perhaps all moral theories require some absolute.
Even relativism adheres to one absolute: There are
no absolutes
Near or almost absolutes
Perhaps the best to aim for are near or almost
absolutes making sure we justify all the exceptions.
i.e. Do not kill other humans. Exceptions: in self-
defense or defense of innocents.

15. Conclusion
Relativism
Are people 100% extreme relativists in real situations?
Most will qualify this statement. What does the need to
supply or add rules to relativism tell us? (anything goes
as long as no one’s hurt.) Our practical lives seem to
conflict with our relativist theories. Not practical to live
with a total relativistic viewpoint.
Absolutism
There are absolutes in the sense of absolutely true
propositions. From some of these we may derive “near or
almost absolutes” that are moral principles like “don’t kill
another human being” that provide basic foundations.
Principles are basic. Each exception must be carefully
justified, to not do so is to act immorally. Principles serve
as means for us to act as close as possible to known true
propositions.

16. Group Discussion Question
Analyze any religious code of ethics (e.g.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism)—
preferably one with which you are familiar.
Indicate to what extent the code of ethics you
have chosen is absolutistic or relativistic, and
discuss the problems created by its position
in this controversy. Provide at least one
example.