Cultural relativism holds that moral truths are relative to the moral framework of a particular culture or society. The document discusses several arguments for and against cultural relativism. It presents Gilbert Harman's argument that moral relativism is a better explanation than absolutism for fundamental moral disagreements between groups. However, it also notes that moral relativism struggles to allow for moral comparison, criticism, and progress. Overall the document analyzes different positions on moral relativism and absolutism but does not reach a clear conclusion.

1. Moral Relativism

2. Today
• Follows the Stephen Law
reading
• Relativism
• Moral Relativism basics
• Some available positions

3. Relativism
• There are no independent truths
• All truths are relative to some
framework or other
– E.g. Some person, culture etc.
• So, what is true for you might not be
true for me
• Time might seem objective… but
it’s actually relative

4. The Great Mystica
• Logical scientific reasoning is not the
only system of belief/knowledge
• Open your mind to what you don’t yet
understand!
• Judged on New Age standards,
astrology is a very sensible practice!
• So, the claims made by astrology are
true (relative to new age ways of
thinking)

5. Interesting vs. Boring
Relativism
• Boring relativism doesn’t involve
contradictory ‘truths’:
– Dan likes tofu, so tofu is nice for him
– John thinks tofu tastes like rotten eggs, so it’s
not nice for him
• Interesting relativism does:
– Dan believes in astrology, so it’s true for him
– John thinks its rubbish, so it’s not true for him

6. Is All Truth Relative?
• ‘All truths are relative’ could be
absolutely or relatively true
• If it’s an absolute truth,
then it contradicts itself
• If it’s a relative truth, then…
what do you think?

7. Is All Truth Relative? 2
• Dan: ‘All truths are relative (including this one)’
• Smart Student: ‘So, whatever I think is true is
true… for me?’
• D: ‘Exactly!’
• SS: ‘So, if I think it’s true that “all truths are
absolute”, then it’s a relative truth that “all truths
are absolute”… but that’s a contradiction!’
• D: Hmmm… Errr… Oh dear…
• SS: ‘Sorry Dan, but “all truths are relative” leads
to a contradiction either way… It’s just not true!

8. Moral Relativism
• There are moral truths, but
• There are no independent truths
about what is morally right or wrong
• Moral truths are always relative to
some group
• E.g. our moral beliefs are true for
us, but not necessarily for other
groups

9. Olaf vs. Mrs Barbery
• Olaf: ‘It’s obviously true that FGM is
morally wrong, because it causes
permanent damage to the
recipients’
• Mrs B: ‘Whose “truth” is this? You
must judge the morality of their
actions by their own moral truths.’

10. Moral Arrogance
• Mrs B: ‘It’s arrogant to assume that you
know the moral truth for everyone and
that they are all wrong!’
• Olaf: ‘But, we should spread our moral
values because they are so obviously
right.’
• Mrs B: ‘If you were them, then you would
not think that it was so obvious.’

11. Some Positions
• Moral relativist
• Moral absolutist
– Arrogant
– Humble
• Moral Nihilist

12. Arrogant Moral Absolutist
– I know what they are
• Problem:
– How can you be sure that
you are right? There is no
test!
• Position:
– There are one or more universal moral
truths that can be used to determine
the morality of actions

13. Humble Moral Absolutist
• Position:
– There are one or more universal moral
truths that can be used to determine
the morality of actions
– I’m not sure what they are
• Problems:
– How can we even discuss this if you
don’t know what they are!?
– What could they even be?

14. Moral Nihilist
• Or ‘Ethical Nihilist’
• Position:
– All talk of morals is rubbish because
nothing is morally right or wrong
• Problems:
– Some actions are clearly more or less
moral than others
– Is there any positive evidence for
moral nihilism?

15. Next Time
• Read
– James Rachels: ‘The Challenge of
Cultural Relativism’
• Get ready to discuss
– More objections to Moral Relativism

16. James Rachels
vs
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton

17. Position Are there moral
facts?
Comment
Moral
Relativist
Yes, but only
relative ones
The truth of moral claims can only
be assessed relative to the
relevant group or framework
Moral
Absolutist
(arrogant)
Yes, universal
ones, which are
(blah, blah)
It’s just obvious that I’m right
Moral
Absolutist
(humble)
Yes, universal
ones, but I’m not
sure what they are
Maybe they are harm and
fairness, but who knows
Nihilist
(extreme)
No. So, stop
talking about them
Your parents/ church/society
made them up
Nihilist
(moderate)
Maybe, but stop
talking about
them…
…Because you can never be sure
what they are

18. Today
• Follows the James Rachels
reading:
– ‘The Challenge of Cultural
Relativism’
• Rachels interpretation of an
arguments for cultural
relativism
• His general criticisms of the
theory

19. Cultural Differences
• Different cultures are… well…
different
• Importantly, many seem to have
different moral codes
• Callatians eat, Greeks burn
• Each think the other is morally
reprehensible

20. E.g. Inuit
• Offer wives to visitors
• Alpha male can drop by any time he
likes
• Grandparents are left out in the cold
to die
• Children (usually girls) are killed at
birth at the parents discretion

21. Cultural Relativism
• A form of moral relativism
• Moral truths are judged relative
to the moral code of the
relevant society/culture
• E.g. infanticide is morally
permissible for Inuits because
the moral code of their society
allows it.

22. What Cultural Relativists
Think
• Societies have different moral codes
• The codes cannot be rated or compared
because there is no objective moral
measure
• Only the moral code of the culture in
question can assess what’s ‘Morally right’
in that culture/society
• Judging other cultures’ moral practices is
arrogant
• we should be tolerant of them

23. The Cultural Differences
Argument
1) Different cultures have different
moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no objective
“truth” in morality. Morally right and
wrong are dependant on the
relevant culture’s moral code
- (what they believe to be morally right
and wrong)

24. Being Charitable
• Give your opponent as much as
possible
• Make their argument better if you
can
• Show why it’s still wrong
• Theoretically, this will cut the
debate short (with you emerging
the clear winner)

25. The (New) Cultural
Differences Argument
1) If cultures believe in different moral
codes, then there is no objective
“truth” in morality
2) Cultures do believe in different
moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no objective
“truth” in morality; it’s all relative.

26. Verdict on the Cultural
Differences Argument
• The argument does not support the
conclusion
• Therefore the argument does not
give good reason to believe the
conclusion
• But, the conclusion could still be
true
• Rachels goes on to discredit the
conclusion

27. Taking Your Opponents
Conclusion Seriously
• Philosophers are famous for having their
head in the sand
• Many of our thought experiments are
‘unrealistic’ / ‘plain stupid’
• One way you can catch people out is to
imagine the (bad/absurd) consequences
of your opponent being correct!
• Reductio ad absurdum

28. Taking Cultural Relativism
Seriously
• 3 absurd consequences:
1) “We can’t judge others”
2) “The standards of our society
dictate right and wrong”
3) “There would be no moral
progress”

29. Judging Others
• “We can no longer say that the
customs of other societies are
morally inferior to our own”
• Works for funerary practices
– Callatians vs Greeks vs us
• Not so well for:
– FGM, Slavery,
– Anti-Semitism

30. Deciding what’s Morally Right
and Wrong
• “We could decide whether actions are
right or wrong just by consulting the
standards of our society”
• Dan: I’m worried that slavery is morally
wrong.
• Southerner: Don’t worry, we all think it’s
OK
• You can’t criticise other societies moral
codes or even your own!

31. Moral Progress
• “The idea of moral progress is brought
into doubt”
• Women are no longer the property of
men
– They can now vote, own property and even
be PM!
– This seems like moral progress
• A cultural relativist must deny many types
of moral progress
– It’s just moral/societal change

32. Verdict on Taking Cultural
Relativism Seriously
1) If cultural relativism is true, then
moral progress, comparison and
criticism don’t make sense
2) Moral progress, comparison and
criticism do make sense
c) Therefore, cultural relativism can’t
be true (it contradicts obvious facts)

33. Is there Really Moral
Disagreement?
• Remember that difference in moral
codes between cultures is a very
important part of the cultural
relativists argument

34. The (New) Cultural
Differences Argument
1) If cultures believe in different moral
codes, then there is no objective
“truth” in morality
2) Cultures do believe in different
moral codes
c) Therefore, there is no objective
“truth” in morality; it’s all relative.

35. Is there Really Moral
Disagreement?
• If we look closely, there may not be
• E.g. Eating cows (grandma)
• E.g. Inuit baby-killing
– Men are the hunters and die more
easily
– Mums can only nurse/carry so many
kids at a time
– Adoption (if possible) first

36. The Common values
• Remember these are morals at the
societal level
– Without these, the societies would fail
• Caring for offspring
• Truth-telling
• Murder is wrong

37. How Much Moral Difference?
• So, it’s contentious how much moral
difference there is
• Does this matter?
• Would a complete lack of moral
difference (at a deep societal level)
mean that moral relativism is false?

38. Problems with Cultural
Relativism
• It’s main argument has 2 problems:
– Believing in a moral code isn’t enough
to make it true
– There may not be moral cultural
differences after all
• If CR is true, then we can’t:
– Compare, criticise or progress morally

39. Lessons from Cultural
Relativism
• It reminds us about cultural differences
– and helps us to examine the peculiar cultural
rules we follow
– Which may well be arbitrary (not morally right
or wrong)
• Be open-minded
– Some of your moral beliefs are probably
based on cultural influences during your
upbringing

40. Next Time
• Read:
– Gilbert Harman: ‘Precis of Moral
Relativism and Moral Objectivity’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Probably the best simple account of
moral relativism

41. Gilbert Harman’s
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton

42. Recap: Some Positions
• Moral relativist
– E.g. Mrs B
• Moral absolutist
– Arrogant e.g. Olaf
– Humble
• Moral Nihilist
– Extreme
– Moderate

43. Recap: Rachels’ Problems
with CR
• It’s main argument has 2 problems:
– Believing in a moral code isn’t enough
to make it true
– There may not be moral cultural
differences after all
• If CR is true, then we can’t:
– Compare, criticise or progress morally

44. Today
• Follows the Gilbert
Harman reading:
–‘Precis of Moral Relativism
and Moral Objectivity’
• Harman’s argument for
moral relativism
• Applying Rachel’s reductio
to Harman’s MR

45. Relativistic Truths
• In some cases, what is true is best
understood in relation to other
truths (background truths)
• Is it true that Bill Clinton had sexual
relations with Monica Lewinsky?
• That depends on some background
facts:
– What counts as sexual relations?

46. How a MR Interprets Moral
Judgments
• When someone says:
– It’s morally wrong for P to do D
– E.g. It’s morally wrong for Bill to cheat on his
wife
• The moral relativist takes them to mean:
– In relation to moral framework M, it’s morally
wrong of P to D
– According to the moral framework of the
USA, it’s morally wrong for Bill to cheat on his
wife

47. Understanding Olaf?
• Olaf: FGM is always morally wrong
• Mrs B: I take it you mean: ‘in
relation to Western moral
frameworks, FGM is always morally
wrong’
• Olaf: No, I don’t!
• Mrs B: Actually, yes you do.

48. Moral Diversity as an Argument
Against Moral Absolutism (Again)
1) There are fundamental moral
disagreements between groups
2) The best explanation for this fact is
that there are no absolute moral
facts, just relative moral facts
c) Therefore, we have good reason to
believe that moral relativism is true

49. Evidence of Fundamental Moral
Diversity
• Some differences in moral
frameworks can’t be explained by
differences in situational factors or
non-moral beliefs
– Killing (who can be killed?)
– Meat-eating
– Liberty vs equality
– NZ: Civil unions, abortion,
homosexuality

50. Moral Absolutists’ Explanation for
Diversity
• Some people are ‘not well placed’ to
discover moral truths
• Perhaps societies that encourage
an open dialogue on ethics are
better placed?
• Perhaps ethics professors in those
societies are best placed?

51. Harman’s Other Reply to the
Moral Absolutists
• There is a good reason why some people
mistakenly think that there are absolute
moral facts:
– Their own moral framework is particularly
salient to them
– The same goes for time/motion
• But it’s only salient to them because of
the culture they grew up in
– The reason it’s so obvious to them is totally
arbitrary

52. Harman’s Reply to the Moral
Absolutists
• Saying that:
– ‘Some people are better placed to discover
absolute moral truths’
• Is the same as saying:
– ‘Some people are better placed to discover
the absolute time’
• Remember that time is relative; there is
no absolute time
• But, are moral truths the same as truths
about time?

53. Verdict on Harman’s Reply to the
Moral Absolutists
• Harman needs to give us a
reason to believe that moral facts
are like facts about time (and not
facts about mathematics)
• The moral absolutists do sound
arrogant/bias, but we do consult
experts about lots of kinds of
truth
• E.g. climate change

54. Moral Frameworks
• “A system of moral coordinates”, a set of
moral values, a moral code
• Analogy with the law
• Consider the non-moral facts of the case in
light of the moral code
• Because this is not easy, we get mistaken
moral beliefs
– That’s when your beliefs don’t follow the
moral code like they should

55. Can Harman’s MR Deal with
Rachels’ Reductio?
• If MR is true, then can we:
– Compare? (better/worse)
– Criticise? (plain wrong)
– Progress morally? (internally)
• Certainly not to the extent that moral
absolutists want to
– They want to challenge the moral code
itself, not just moral beliefs

56. Sort of Summary
• So far we’ve had:
– An argument against moral relativism
(Rachels), and
– An argument against moral absolutism
(Harman), and only
– Some very weak arguments to believe
either position is true!
• Should we be moral nihilists by
default?
– Maybe we just need to think more

57. Next Time
• Read:
– Russ Shafer-Landau: 3 Chapters from
‘What Ever Happened to Good and
Evil?’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Another opinion on this tricky problem

58. Russ Shafer-Landau on
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton

59. More Positions
• Moral relativist
– Cultural relativist = (societal level)
– Moral subjectivist (individual level)
• Moral absolutist (Ethical Objectivist)
– Arrogant
– Humble
• Moral nihilist
– Extreme (error theorist about morality)
– Moderate

60. Today
• Follows the Russ Shafer-
Landau reading:
– 4 chapters from: ‘What
Ever Happened to Good
and Evil?’
• S-L’s arguments (in
defense of moral
absolutism)
• Summary of the topic

61. Ethical Objectivism
• Ethical Objectivism = Moral Absolutism
• Conventional morality = moral beliefs/standards
used to govern behaviour
• Moral truths that are independent of
conventional morality do exist
• Those moral truths can be used to
assess the merits of conventional
moralities

62. Getting Morality Wrong
• Some fundamental moral codes are
surely mistaken e.g.
– cultures that don’t give men and women equal
rights
– Slavery etc
• How are they mistaken?
• Either:
– Error theorist’s account or
– Ethical Objectivist’s account

63. Error Theory
(About Morality)
• Error Theorist = Extreme Nihilist
• Every element of conventional morality
is mistaken
+ve) George Bush, slavers, terrorists &
misogynists are wrong
-ve) So are saints, abolitionists & freedom
fighters

64. Ethical Objectivists on Moral
Error
1) If some people/groups have moral
codes that are incorrect, then there
must be some independent moral truths
to judge them so
2) Some people/groups have moral codes
that are wrong e.g. Hitler/Nazis, slavers
etc.
c) Therefore, there are moral truths that
are independent of conventional
morality

65. Cultural Relativists on Moral
Error
• Internal Critique (allowed)
– From inside the culture
– Criticises moral beliefs by reference to
inconsistencies with the existing moral
code
– E.g. segregation in South USA
• External Critique (not allowed)
– Criticises moral codes by reference to
independent moral facts

66. How Changes in CRs’ Moral
Frameworks Happen
• (Not from Shafer-Landau)
• Most people believe that an act is morally
permissible
• Some of the other people criticise, protest
& try to persuade the majority
• Criticisms can be ‘internal’ or about the
fundamental moral code itself
• Most people change their mind, so the
moral framework changes

67. Is Moral Change A Problem for
Cultural Relitivists?
• (Not from Shafer-Landau)
• Maybe… Weird result:
• 30% to abolish death penalty
• 50% want to keep it
• The 30% are wrong… until a few
more people change their minds,
then they are right and the other
wrong!

68. Consequences of Moral
Absolutism Being False
• Either our own fundamental moral
code is always right or always
wrong
– Error theory (extreme nihilism)
• Always wrong
– Moral relativism or subjectivism
• Always right
• Except under CR if you disagree with the
existing moral code, but then you would
be irrational

69. Moral Equivalence
• At the level of fundamental moral
code, most theories imply moral
equivalence
• Nihilism
– Extreme (error theory) & moderate
• Moral relativism
– CR & subjectivism
• ME = all moral beliefs/codes are
equally in/correct

70. Argument Against Moral
Equivalence
1) No one believes in moral equivalence
(because donating money to charity is
obviously better than organising a genocide)
2) If no one believes in moral equivalence , then
some moral codes must be inferior to others
3) If some moral codes are inferior to others,
then there must be an objective morality to
deem them so
c) Therefore, there are moral truths that are
independent of conventional morality

71. Shafer-Landau vs Mrs
Barbery
• Mrs B: Every moral judgment is
necessarily made from that person’s
perspective
• Mr. S-L: Claims are always issued from a
person’s perspective. But, it does not
follow from that truism that everyone’s
claims are equally correct
• Mr. S-L: In all areas of inquiry, the default
assumption is that one of us might be
right

72. Another Argument Against Moral
Equivalence
1) In [nearly] all areas of inquiry, the default
assumption when there is a disagreement is
that one person might be right
2) Morality should be treated like other areas of
inquiry
3) There is disagreement about fundamental
moral codes
4) The default assumption should be that one
person might be right
5) A good reason is required to divert from the
default assumption
c) Therefore, we need to be given a good reason to
believe in moral equivalence

73. Moral Progress
• Is the abolition of segregation a
morally good thing?
• If you answered ‘yes’, then you are
probably a moral absolutist
• What makes you think it’s morally
good?
– These might be your absolute moral
truths

74. Personal Moral Progress
• New years resolution time! How can I be
morally better?
• Ethical Subjectivist:
– I’m already morally irreproachable
• Cultural Relativist:
– We’re already morally irreproachable
• Progress is measured against the existing
standard
• Nihilist (Both): Shaddap! Who cares! I wish I
had friends 

75. Argument from Dogmatism
(against MA)
1) Moral absolutism leads to moral
arrogance
2) Moral arrogance is very bad
3) Moral relativism & nihilism avoid
moral arrogance
4) Avoiding very bad is very good
c) Therefore, moral relativism is very
good

76. S-L reply to P1
1) Moral absolutism leads to moral
arrogance
• What about humble MAs?
• There is a fact of the matter about
physics, but humble scientists are
not arrogant about their theories
• Because humble MAs and scientists
don’t invent their ‘truths’, then they
should not be arrogant about them

77. S-L reply to P3
3) Moral relativism & nihilism avoid
moral arrogance
• Nihilism arrogantly assumes
everyone is wrong
• MR makes everyone right about
morality, so everyone could be
arrogant

78. Dogmatism
• S-L’s best point on
dogmatism/arrogance:
• “There is no better check
against hubris and
arrogance than the
recognition that we are not
the authors of the moral
law.”

79. Next Time
• Read:
– Julian Baggini: ‘Bank Error in Your
Favour’
• Get ready to discuss:
– Essay tips
– Summary of Moral Relativism
– Intro to ‘Why Be Moral?’

80. Summary of
Moral Relativism
PHIL104 – 2009
Dan Turton

81. S-L’s Basic
Tactics
• Philosophy can =
reconciling our
beliefs with the truth
• Assuming our beliefs are correct
– E.g. about Nazism being immoral
• And, so describes ‘the truth about what is’ in a way
that validates our beliefs
• But, sometimes philosophers conclude that we
should change our beliefs!

82. Position Are there moral
facts?
Comment
Cultural
Relativist
Yes, but only
relative ones
Something is im/moral for a culture
iff that culture’s moral code deems
it so
Moral
Subjectivist
Yes, but only
relative ones
Something is im/moral for someone
iff that person’s moral code deems
it so
Arrogant
Absolutist
Yes, universal ones,
which are…
It’s just obvious that I’m right! They
are XYZ…
Humble
Absolutist
Universal ones, I’m
pretty sure
I’m not sure what they are, but some
acts are clearly im/moral
Extreme
Nihilist
No. So, stop
discussing them
Your parents/church/society made
them up (moral error theorist)
Moderate
Nihilist
Maybe, but stop
discussing them…
…Because you can never be sure
what they are

83. Summary: The Nature of
‘Moral Facts’
• What are ‘moral facts’ really like?
– facts about maths or logic,
– facts about chemistry or physics,
– facts about time,
– opinions,
– ‘facts’ about the boogey man
• Can you come up with a good
justification for your belief?

84. Summary: Reasons to Believe
in a Position
• No position seems to be supported by a
sound deductive argument
• But which position has the best reasons
to believe it?
• Remember to also consider the
consequences of the positions being true
– These could be reasons not to believe a
position

85. DIY Best Position Table
Position Best reasons to
believe
Best reasons not to
believe
Humble
Absolutist
No firm commitments
required. Lots of
potential moral facts to
follow up
You have to suggest some or you
you are boring.
Why think that those ones are the
the ones? – try to think up counter-
counter-examples.
Extreme
Nihilist
Coolest position by far.
(Plus cool mo like
Nietzsche)
Probably leads to no friends,
and possibly jail time
• Read the readings and fill in the whole
table yourself