Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
Today we begin our discussion of ethics. Later we will be turning our attention to a few issues in
applied ethics -- questions about what it is right or wrong to do in particular cases. But we will be
beginning our discussion of ethics by addressing some general questions. And today we begin with
the most general question of all: are there facts about what it is right and wrong for us to do and, if so,
what are those facts like?
There is an interesting contrast between many peoples’ intuitions about ethical claims, and their
intuitions about other sorts of claims; this contrast can be brought out by considering some examples.
Suppose that you are asked some controversial ethical question, like
Was it morally permissible for Truman to use atomic weapons in World War II?
or
Is it morally wrong for Notre Dame to have Obama as the commencement speaker?
Many people would respond to at least some questions of this sort -- even if not the examples above
-- by saying something like:
“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me this is wrong, but that does not mean that it is wrong for everyone.”
“Well, I think that this is wrong, but that is just my opinion.”
It is interesting that we would not respond this way to questions about, for example, what is being
served in North Dining Hall. In response to an important dining hall question like
Do they have beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall tonight?
Was it morally permissible for Truman to use atomic weapons in World War II?
or
Is it morally wrong for Notre Dame to have Obama as the commencement speaker?
Many people would respond to at least some questions of this sort -- even if not the examples above
-- by saying something like:
“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me this is wrong, but that does not mean that it is wrong for everyone.”
“Well, I think that this is wrong, but that is just my opinion.”
It is interesting that we would not respond this way to questions about, for example, what is being
served in North Dining Hall. In response to an important dining hall question like
Do they have beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall tonight?
no one would respond by saying
“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me it is true that they are serving the stroganoff, but that does not mean that it is
true for everyone.”
“Well, I think that they are serving stroganoff, but that is just my opinion.”
or, if we would, they would mean quite different things than when used in answer to the ethical
question.
The fact that we would not give answers of this sort indicates that we all endorse a thesis that might be
called dining hall absolutism: we think that there are genuine facts about what food is being served in
the dining hall, and that these facts do not depend on the perspective, opinion, or anything about the
person who happens to be discussing these facts.
Just so, the fact that people would respond to at least some ethical questions by saying things like
“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me this is wrong, but that does not mean that it is wrong for everyone.”
“Well, I think that this is wrong, but that is just my opinion.”
indicates that these people are, in at least some moods, tempted to deny the following thesis:
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
There are, broadly speaking, two ways of denying moral absolutism. One might say that there are no
facts about what is right and wrong; or one might say that there are facts about what is right and
wrong, but that these facts are relative to a person or group of persons.
Let’s consider the first, more radical view:
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
The moral nihilist might respond to this challenge by pointing out that we quite often use language to
do things other than describe facts. Consider the following examples:
“Get out of my classroom!”
“I declare you husband and wife.”
“Boooo!” (said while at sporting event)
These are both perfectly meaningful uses of language, but neither is an attempt to describe some fact
in the world. So perhaps the moral nihilist should say that our uses of ethical language, as in
“Stealing is wrong!”
are like these; perhaps the purpose of this sort of sentence is not to describe a fact, but to do
something else.
This raises the question: what are the purposes of our uses of ethical language?
One promising answer to this question is: they are commands, like saying “Get out of my classroom!”
Perhaps saying the above sentence about capital punishment is a way of saying something like this:
“Don’t steal!”
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
This raises the question: what are the purposes of our uses of ethical language?
One promising answer to this question is: they are commands, like saying “Get out of my classroom!”
Perhaps saying the above sentence about stealing is a way of saying something like this:
“Don’t steal!”
On this view, uses of words like “wrong” and “right” are not meant to describe facts in the world, but
rather are used to issue commands, or exhortations.
One apparent strength of this sort of view is that it explains an interesting fact about moral claims: that
moral disagreements seem particularly resistant to resolution. Sometimes, of course, moral
disagreements can be resolved; but other times, it seems possible for two people to, for example,
know all of the relevant facts about abortion, and still disagree about whether it is sometimes morally
permissible. By contrast, it does not seem possible for two people to know all of the relevant facts
about the dining hall, and yet disagree about whether stroganoff is on offer.
On the present view, this sort of persistent disagreement would be explained by the fact that the two
people are really not disagreeing about any facts about the world: they are, instead, simply expressing
contrary preferences.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
This raises the question: what are the purposes of our uses of ethical language, if not to state facts?
One promising answer to this question is: they are commands, like saying “Get out of my classroom!”
Perhaps saying the above sentence about capital punishment is a way of saying something like this:
“Don’t steal!”
However, even if this view seems plausible for sentences like “Stealing is wrong”, it does not fit other
uses of ethical language as well. Consider, for example past tense sentences like
“The Athenians were wrong to put Socrates to death.”
could this really mean:
“Athenians, don’t put Socrates to death!”
or
“Don’t support the Athenians’ decision to put Socrates to death!”
This seems absurd.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
Other problems arise with uses of ethical language in more complex sentences. For example, the
following sentence seems to make sense:
If stealing is wrong, then Bob would never steal.
But consider how the sort of nihilist we are considering might analyze this sentence:
If don’t steal!, then Bob would never steal.
This doesn’t just seem like the wrong analysis; it is not even grammatical. The problem seems to be
that we cannot grammatically use imperatives in the “if” part of an “if-then” sentence, even though we
can use ethical sentences in that way. It seems to follow that ethical sentences can’t just be disguised
imperatives.
So this way of making sense of ethical language does not make moral nihilism seem very appealing.
One other option for the moral nihilist is worth considering. Consider what my two year old daughter is
doing when she says:
“Santa Claus will bring me an Elmo doll this year.”
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what
is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”
So this way of making sense of ethical language does not make moral nihilism seem very appealing.
One other option for the moral nihilist is worth considering. Consider what my two year old daughter is
doing when she says:
“Santa Claus will bring me an Elmo doll this year.”
It seems clear that she is trying to describe the world: she is saying something about how she takes
the world to be. It’s just that what she is saying is false, since there is no Santa Claus.
The moral nihilist might say the same thing about “Stealing is wrong”: he might say that it is an attempt
to describe the world, but one which is always false, since there are no such things as right and wrong
actions.
This strikes many people as an extreme view. So let’s move to consideration of our second source of
opposition to moral absolutism: the view that there are facts about which actions are right and wrong,
but that these facts are, in some way or another, relative to a person or group of people.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
This strikes many people as an extreme view. So let’s move to consideration of our second source of
opposition to moral absolutism: the view that there are facts about which actions are right and wrong,
but that these facts are, in some way or another, relative to a person or group of people.
A first question is about what a view like this could mean. In fact, there are many things that it could
mean, but one thing it could mean is this:
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
A natural next question is: how do we tell what the relevant person or group is? Are my actions to be
judged by the standards of Americans, residents of Indiana, members of Notre Dame’s faculty, or
what?
One reply is just to say that we can ask about the morality of my actions relative to any of these sets of
standards, depending on what we’re interested in. The key claim is that there is no sense in which an
action is right or wrong, independently of the standards of some person or society.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
How might one argue for moral relativism?
One clear line of thought is that moral relativism is true because it is just an instance of a more general
claim: global relativism. Global relativism is the claim that all claims -- not just claims about right and
wrong -- are only true or false relative to the standards of a person or group.
Unfortunately for this argument, global relativism is a very unattractive
position, as has been known since around 360 BC, when Plato wrote the
Theatetus.
Plato, in effect, suggested that we think about the following statement of
the global relativist thesis:
(GR) Every truth is only true relative to the standards of some person or group.
He then posed the following dilemma: either (1) (GR) is true absolutely, or
(2) it is true only relative to the framework of global relativism.
If (1), then (GR) is false, since it is a counterexample to itself.
If (2), then no defense of (GR) will give someone who is not a global relativist a reason to believe it, since such a
defense would only show that (GR) is true relative to some framework other than his own.
So the moral relativist would do better not to rest his position on global relativism.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
How might one argue for moral relativism?
One important line of argument is the same as the argument considered above for moral nihilism: the
persistence of moral disagreement. Moral relativists often focus, in particular, on the wide disparities
between the moral views of different cultures. This is just what moral relativism should lead us to
expect, since according to the moral relativist, what is right in one culture is typically different than
what is right in another.
But this disparity in moral views can look puzzling from the point of view of the moral absolutist. If what
is right is right independent of one’s social group, how can different cultures come to such different
views about what is right and wrong?
There are a few responses to this argument from the point of view of moral absolutism.
One is to say that the level of moral disagreement between cultures has been systematically
exaggerated, and that the level of moral agreement between them has been systematically
underestimated.
A second (perhaps complementary strategy) is to say that the moral relativist’s explanation of the
disagreement we do find is, in the end, undercut by closer attention to the nature of that disagreement.
~u-~-
'" -OJ
"'OJ~~--~
A second (perhaps complementary strategy) is to say that the moral relativist’s explanation of the
disagreement we do find is, in the end, undercut by closer attention to the nature of that disagreement.
u
0.
~
t:.c
c
~
~
U
-~~~-",o
o
3"'._uv...
lU
E
",""
C
.-
I
lU
-o.=:
~
---~
-V
~
:l:
0
go;
lU
u
-~
~
"'"
~
-:::
--o...u.-.o
u ~
~
...~
~
.Q
-5
~
0
~uu
-~~
:5
-~
~lU
-0
~
E
--;
lU~O
-~I...
u '"
>
-0
I... -=
U
0
"0
E
'"
~
-c '"
bO
~};"3 -:
.c '" --S
~o--"'o~u
-~ -::: u .c
=u;
~"',..
lU
~
%, '"',~>C
;
:3
-OJ
~
.c
~o""""'.c~
bv~_~~...u
-~
0
,
==
~
~
s
~
.c---o"Ou-
-~
~
",
-~
~
...lU
0
OJ
~
I...
U
u
.c -"0":OJ
--lU
-.c
->
~
-0
c
:5
lUC
'"
".
-~
->
---U
lU
V
~
'"
=' ~ .~
...U
..su-~oJ::...cr
8
~
~
v~
lU
lUlU..slU=,
~'u
cr
~
;3
...
0
~
0~
~
@
~
'"
~
I...
...;3
I...lU"'~
.-~--0
-"'-~
.c
C-:::""""";""~'"
"'-
~~L._"'..s~
V
~
E
r.s
u
oJ::
U
0
>:s--~~~:"
:5
v~~--
~
-~
~
Q."""'"
E
~-
...~
'"
::
,~
I
-.c
:::
0
-=
~;>o
u",
,,--
~
~.~
U
'"
E
-Q.
~
~
>
~
'"
...;""u~-
~
",--~
U
--~
~
QJ
U"'o~
0
-0'"
-~
~
-~v
oJ::
...
;:
~
-~
u
~
u
~
t:
_;3
bO
=
v
lU
~
~
~~"'" lU "0
lU -ClJ
vv-o...
~
:=:;.
~
bO...
v
,ClJU
:5
cr
~
c
g
0
c0
-
,4J
'"
'"
E
q.)
--,
,..:;::.3
:5 ~v
U
~-'"
0' :a;
~
-U'
-
~
~
'"
E
0'"
~
bO
bO"'--,ClJ
~
E
~
bO
"'.=:
"'..1...
~o_~~
~
C
~
E
ro
0
~~I
-OJ
bO
:5
0
E
.'"
.:. '" -QJ
OJ ~ -~ "'
0 ~--= ~
.c-~
-.c
0:'
~.-
0.8
Q.
E
-:
""",
-..,-:::"'-o~bO
v
rT._~
U
"'vo_-o-
~--lU;3;""
"'
",-0
~ lU ~
@ ~...
;,::: -0
.~
~
~.~ -U
ClJ
>
Ul...uU~"';3
I...
Q.
I...
-:::-->o.QClJ
Q. -~
..s~c'+..OJ~
E
'0
'oo~o.o",
;
~
::
-~
-~
-:::
:S
lU-
--5
lU
O.=:
U =
-.c
""~.c"O._1...
~
-~
<::
U
-:::
0
U
--0
t:
b()
.~
-ov
;""
=o "0
0 1...:5I...
-~
~uCJ-=
lU
.c",EoE
U""..-:::
r-o
;
.u --,
-:;
0
U
C
3:..s
O -"'U---~
u:'::
~:::
"CU"CU "';3
-~
~
~
0
v
""'-"~-I...
;3
~
Ub()-
~
-.c ~ ~-=' -~
-9:
~
-5
ClJ ..s.c
~
"';>o
U
-.-".
.-0
q.)I...O~-
~",-~"';""~-o;>o
...0
I...
0
U"'OV~--
~ol...u",,-o~
-~,..:5
-I...
r.s~~lU>~:5
r-..s...~
o"'._~-oo-:I...O~-~Ou
s
U
000
O
0
.c..,~~.Qr.scEo-~I
'o~='~"'"
--(~~.c.coo
':
~
-~:5",
V
v
s---
:3
,-
...co~-="'-u
lU ;""U;3Q. ",lU
ClJ ~
bO ~o
--5
When we look at the moral views of various cultures, MacIntyre says,
one thing we do not find is the view that these views are only binding
on members of the relevant culture. Rather, the moral views of
cultures are typically views about how it is best for human beings in
general to live, and not just members of that culture. This, MacIntyre,
says,
~
t: -6~ .-~
'" lU
tU -;> -:g "@
~..,- ...t: ;3 ~
0
-~
-~
::
t,
~
~ClJ
v
-0
~
""'U
-",
~
r.s 0- --0
",t.:b()'-""'UU
;3
~
c
ClJ~"'-O3:"""o~-~""""'3:I..."""'U",:5v
ClJ
3:
.
~-..s-"
--V;>o
~
:::
lU""
lU
-5
~~=,--u
~-
~.~
--~
0
lU
-~
-u
oJ::
E
0
-.~
-I...;>o~
",.-,
--U
U
>
~o.:.. U
:=;.""
~
..lU
~
='
='
v"'-
U---ClJ
~...",Ecr uc
q.)...
u",
--",
E..
-~:=;.
-Ou",
lU ~
I... ..."0
.3
0
~
~o
~
~
'"
~-
3:
-oJ::
...",'...
--.c""1"'--;
~ ---ClJ
--Q.
u'~-Q
--", vlUC -=- ~",
~
'" -=
.GJ
-o~,--
>
O",,~cCa.
CClJ-
o.c
oJ::"'I...UO--=,u~o
~
~
~
",
.,
0
u
I
t;
"'
v
~
U
a.~lU>..s--oJ::..s,-o
I...
u'=
;j
""..s
0.
This is the strategy pursued by Alasdair MacIntyre in the
reading for today.
'~ 0""';"
6 'u --V)
--~
~ -OJ
-~
--a
~ """...
~ ~ -:; .0 .c -~ :0 ~
-U
e tU ;
"'.c-="O-~",
S ~ 3: ~ -..,...
c -:: --~
OJ
o
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
I...
>
Q.
~:::uQ.u..s""'lU;>oU'
ClJ Q. --~
U'
='
OJt;
u
5-.c_"'.c_~.c
0
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
lU
-~
.Q
-5
lUlU..slU=,
~'u
cr
~
;3
...
0
-",
~uu
-~~
:5
~
E
-~
~lU
-0
--;
lU~O
-~I...
u '"
>
-0
I... -=
U
0
"0
~
0~
~
@
~
'--~
~
'"
~
-c '"
bO
~};"3 -:
.c '" --S
~o--"'o~u
-~ -::: u .c
=u;
~"',..
lU
-~
I...
%, '"',~>C
;
:3
-OJ
~
OJ
::
,~
I
-.c
:::
0
-=
I...
V
~
E
v~
~
'"
=' ~ .~
...U
..su-~oJ::...cr
8
~
~
oJ::
U
0
>:s--~~~:"
:5
v~~--
~
-~
~
Q."""'"
E
~-
...~
'"
,-
~;>o
u",
,,--
~
~.~
U
'"
E
-Q.
~
~
>
~
'"
...;""u~-
~
",--~
U
--~
~
QJ
U"'o~
0
-0'"
-~
~
-~v
oJ::
...
;:
~
-~
u
~
u
~
t:
_;3
bO
=
v
lU
~
~
~~"'" lU "0
lU -ClJ
vv-o...
~
:=:;.
~
bO...
v
,ClJU
:5
cr
~
c
g
0
c0
-
,4J
'"
'"
E
q.)
--,
,..:;::.3
:5 ~v
U
~-'"
0' :a;
~
-U'
-
~
~
'"
E
0'"
~
bO
bO"'--,ClJ
~
E
~
bO
"'.=:
"'..1...
~o_~~
~
C
~
E
ro
0
~~I
-OJ
bO
:5
0
E
.'"
.:. '" -QJ
OJ ~ -~ "'
0 ~--= ~
.c-~
-.c
0:'
~.-
0.8
Q.
E
-:
""",
-..,-:::"'-o~bO
v
rT._~
U
"'vo_-o-
~--lU;3;""
"'
",-0
~ lU ~
@ ~...
;,::: -0
.~
~
~.~ -U
ClJ
>
Ul...uU~"';3
I...
Q.
I...
-:::-->o.QClJ
Q. -~
..s~c'+..OJ~
E
'0
'oo~o.o",
;
~
::
-~
-~
-:::
:S
lU-
--5
lU
O.=:
U =
-.c
""~.c"O._1...
~
-~
<::
U
-:::
0
U
--0
t:
b()
.~
-ov
;""
=o "0
lU
.c",EoE
U""..-:::
r-o
;
.u --,
-:;
0
U
C
3:..s
O -"'U---~
u:'::
~:::
"CU"CU "';3
-~
~
~
0
v
""'-"~-I...
;3
~
Ub()-
~
-.c ~ ~-=' -~
-9:
~
-5
ClJ ..s.c
~
"';>o
U
-.-".
.-0
q.)I...O~-
~",-~"';""~-o;>o
...0
I...
0
U"'OV~--
~ol...u",,-o~
-~,..:5
-I...
r.s~~lU>~:5
r-..s...~
o"'._~-oo-:I...O~-~Ou
r.s
u
0 1...:5I...
-~
~uCJ-=
--5
~
...lU
0
->
~
~
.c -"0":OJ
u
--lU
-.c
~
.c
~o""""'.c~
bv~_~~...u
-~
0
,
==
~
~
~
.c---o"Ou-
-~
",
~ -..,...
OJ
E
s
~
U
-0
c
:5
bO ~o
->
---U
lU
V
...co~-="'-u
lU ;""U;3Q. ",lU
ClJ ~
lUC
'"
".
-~
'"
~
...;3
I...lU"'~
.-~--0
-"'-~
.c
"'-
~~L._"'..s~
s
U
000
O
C-:::""""";""~'"
V
v
s---
:3
0
.c..,~~.Qr.scEo-~I
'o~='~"'"
--(~~.c.coo
':
~
-~:5",
~
r.s 0- --0
There is thus a sense in which, if relativism is true, almost everyone
throughout history has had a mistaken view of the status of their own
moral beliefs.
.
~
-:::
~
~
.
~-..s-"
--V;>o
~
"'"
~ -OJ
-~
~ -:; .0 .c -~ :0
"'.c-=~ 3:
~u-~-
-OJ
J~~--~
--o...u.-.o
-~
~
0
...",'...
--.c""1"'--;
~.~
--~
u ~
~
...~
0
lU
-u
ClJ
-U
~-
~
When we look at the moral views of various cultures, MacIntyre says,
one thing we do not find is the view that these views are only binding
on members of the relevant culture. Rather, the moral views of
cultures are typically views about how it is best for human beings in
general to live, and not just members of that culture. This, MacIntyre,
says,
~
t: -6~ .-~
'" lU
tU -;> -:g "@
~..,- ...t: ;3 ~
-5
~~=,--u
:::
lU""
lU
0
...;>o~
::
-~
""'U
~
~ClJ
t,
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
",t.:b()'-""'UU
;3
~
c
ClJ~"'-O3:"""o~-~""""'3:I..."""'U",:5v
~
v
-0
ClJ
3:
S
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
"
-;:
ClJ
--~
.3
I... ..."0
lU ~
Q.
='
U'
.GJ
'" -=
~
",
~
U
a.~lU>..s--oJ::..s,-o
v
t;
>
O",,~cCa.
CClJ-
o.c
oJ::"'I...UO--=,u~o
~
~
~
-o~,--
I
"'
u
0
.,
I...
u'=
;j
"':""..s
0.
0
~
-Ou",
..lU
~
='
q.)...
u",
-;..-
~
--U
",.-,
lU
~
0
~
~
O..t:bO bO
-~
~
.-V
v
u
u
v
0
~
~.
'"
QJ
:;:
~
0
0
on
0
0
~..t:
U
.J:)
-0
~
@
-~
'"
~
C-:::""""";""~'"
lU
I...
...;3
I...lU"'~
.-~--0
-"'-~
.c
'-
;>
V
0
~
:3
U..t:
-;
--vOv~~
""'
~ V 0 '- QJ
:3'='
~
U
on
-0
t:
:::
-~
v
~
~
U
I:;
0
~~L._"'..s~
u
V
V
~
oJ::
0
~
U
>:s--~~~:"
:5
~
~
v~~--
~-
E
Q."""'"
-~
r.s~~lU>~:5
r-..s...~
o"'._~-oo-:I...O~-~Ou
E
C
-;..I...
..t:
---v
;> .r::
U
'"
~
". '" .~
"'".~
~
bO
8
~
-5
ClJ ..s.c
'"
~
--U
on
-._,~
0
-~
~
~
.-0
-.-".
U
"';>o
;
--0
~:::
r-o
-:;
0
I...
Q.
I...
-U'
~
~
v
~-'"
,ClJU
=
~
0' :a;
_;3
:5
cr
~
c
u
0
c0
-
,4J
'"
'"
g
-
E
q.)
--,
:;::.3
,..-
u..
M
:5 ~v
U
~
'"
bO...
.~
;,::: -0
@ ~...
~ lU ~
vv-o...
'"
~
~
In
:;
E
~
:=:;.
~.-
~
E
~
~
~
bO
"'.=:
"'..1...
~o_~~
~
C
~
~
0'"
bO
~
bO"'--,ClJ
E
"'-..
U
~--lU;3;""
"'
"'vo_-o-
-:
""",
v
-..,-:::"'-o~bO
rT._~
I:;
",-0
0.8
Q.
3:..s
U
--~
",--~
t:
0
U
""'-"~-I...
v
Ub()b()
~
.u --,
1:;-'
C
~
'"'
t:
--~-
~
I...v,-~:"I:E"""I
~
I..
-~
-:::.,
I..
V
u
U
..t:
~
.--=
~'~vl::>~V
0
U
bO
-;;
~
--bO
0
~
v
.~
~
V
0
;::
~.
...QJ
.-~
u
r-
"«
--.'"
cr
-'
«
Ir
0
t:
0
"'"
v :>
~
I..
~ w -0
'"
I:
--~-
L.
I-
-0 :I:
.--~
~
'"
v"'O~
~.r:: I- ~
:J
0
~ I:; t: 0 ~.
U
'o~.r::0:C1..
~
;..~
:::
I..
I:";~~",~"'-~~O~
v:3 ~ V
I... ~ .;; ~
-~
--
""0
~
..~
~
--"0
~
C;:.
~
::
I::
v
bO
,-,
-;;;
.r::
;:!oo.'!:
u
~-;:::
-ti
~...
-'"
t:t:
~
J
In
E. ~
:3 "0
-~
u
'-
-0
-
~
'"
~
v
-:::
'::
-~
~
0
:..
.~
':;
...
:>
=
0
~
~
~ -~ -5
..."1:)
'"
=,"1:)
,~ "'"" ;3
...:::
g ;;:'
u
-0
8
"'1+:",
~~~
~
-0
~
~
«
Ir
:J
-'
0-
~-::;-;;
~
0
«
--~
0
~ .~
J
-0
0 ""
I.. ...='
Ir
~~~
0
~ ~ ;:: ';G -0 OJ": -5-' ; .f:. ~
.0
;3
'"
q.)I...O~...0
I...
~",-~"';""~-o;>o
-bO
0
:3 ~
~
~
~
v
1:;""
v
-;;
~
.!:~-.-::::::~..t:c~r.:
-""'
,g
'"
0""
0
.::-
~
u
v
.c 0 ~I: 0 :::
~ bo ..-~
0. OJ-:-: ~
bO
.-~
~ >- ~ --;;;
I: C -= g -~ I:; ~
~ .~ 0 ~
~ ~:!,
;:: U ""' -0''" -0..J:)
I: ~ .!: OJ
v 0. I:;
v
0.
'"
0:-:
;..- -~'"
I...
~ -;;
~
-;;;...
~~~~""
""
U
I:
'"
""
~.u
0.-
~
-v
~
0
~
~...
u
~
-~._~--.J:)
""0
~
V O.J:)
I.. ;..- '"-",",~ ~V
;..- 0 ;>
bO ~...",:a""
~
2. .~ ~ =""
v C ;..I .;: t: :.. ...~
".:
~
~
QJ
v:~
""
~
--~
~
v
~
5
~
v
0
~
u
~;..-
I:
() t:.r::
~
...'0
I:
V
-""-",,~V""o.~boI:O
~
u
~
=
v,,,v
0
..I
-:::
v
::
'0
8-u
v
--u;>...
~
0
-;;";:::
o-~
~
~
-u
o..c
Co
-
v '" U
~
;"::
~--0"1:)
--= '" -'
"'-~ ~
0
~
:!,...
~ v .f:. f:: :::
-U'"
-C
"'""
I+: ~
~
~
1:;--'"
-~
~
:;:
~ ""'
--~
0
-~
't,
u
0
U
=
te.'"
OJ
~
0
'"
5
-;;
0
'"
::
.c
~
-::;-
.r::
-~
U
-=
-0
~::",,-'~
~-'~.::
~
~
"- .c .~ ~",";> ---
"G:i -5
u
,0
"'...
0
::.
~
I:
:..
a.
0
'-
,:~",
o.v';;
-:
'"
~
...!;:
~
~
t:~:3""""
~~~-
~-
.I:
QJ
~
I:
~
-:::
..:>
v
::;
~
-0:::
v
te
-~
.r::,,"-VI...I:---'-"'-";;
:>
0
>- 'k~-
-0
'AJ~-~~
~
.::='cu;..-
-=
~:';
~
-=
I:
-=
~
~
V
;:
~
};
;::
~
0
:..
~
~
;::1..0
~
3
~
~
~
-I..
"'--.1..'"
~ :i!:.
~.~
bC
on '-'
,,-,
0
-;;
"'"~
:;, ;
0
~ -ri
-V
...
u",--o",V...",
.~
.!:
-~
--'--~ -.-,
'"
~
v
"1:)-':31:
0.
;
v
""
0.
'" ---"..
--v
1..;>1..
~
-;n
",.~v-
~"C
-'"
~ ~ ~ ~
00
]
E
v
t:
:"1
.9;
:..o.J:)-~v
"'--""""
0
~
:D
-""
---u.c
~
~
~
-'-t.:-'
0
v
~
;:
"0
; <::3.f:. 3 u9JE ~ ~ .= '0 .g ~ .~ ~
-bO~
-'"
::
5
~
---o-"'"::~.r::
:"QJ""
.!:.!:;..-
0
~.9;
0
;.;;:
~
"'...~
'
~
:>V",o-O'~'~--;;>v'"
,-"'o::::~
0
~
-.c ~ ~-=' -~
"0
':
~
O
...~
~ol...u",,-o~
-~,..:5
-I... U"'OV~-u
000
r.s
"';"-'..
~
()
~
s
'"
v
~:"v-1...1...
--~
~
0
U
-:-
~
-9:
~
-~:5",
V
v
s--:3
on'
--I:;
-..t:
~ -;;; Z ~ ~
0 ..t:
..::'ft
~
~~_U'--I...U
:>
","
"'-
--(~~.c.coo.c..,~~.Qr.scEo-~I
'o~='~"'"
0~
~
~..,- ...t: ;3 ~
tU -;> -:g "@
'" lU
t: -6~ .-~
~
lU
~'u
cr
...
0
~
-5
0
-~
lUlU..slU=,
::
~
t,
~
~ClJ
v
-0
~
ClJ~"'-O3:"""o~-~""""'3:I..."""'U",:5v
""'U
-",
~
r.s 0- --0
",t.:b()'-""'UU
~
;3
0
ClJ
..t:'
'"
~
..t:
U V
;: '" ~
I..
3:
c
;3
-~
-I...;>o~
0
-.~
E
='
v"'-
U---ClJ
~...",Ecr uc
E..
-~:=;.
~
--",
~o
~
~
'"
~-
3:
-oJ::
~
v
~
~
..t::3I...'~
0
t:
-bO:>
"'.-"'"
0
.9;
0
E
V
-.-,
In this sense, MacIntyre compares relativism to a stance which simply
dismisses all alien cultures as inferior:
I I...O:':'~t:t--I...t:"'~O
'" :> ::: v --~ 0
~ V
v -0
;..- I... ...""'
0 0 V
> U
v
V
v
'"
c ~ 0- 0 -5 ~
0
--U
-~ u
t: '~
-0--V
~.r::V~..t:bO
v
I..
.J:)
~
v
v -V
I:;
~
oo-~u
l
'"
~
c"'
0.
v
.;;
u
v
~
~
o
~
u
~..t:~
~
~I
-""-
~;..-
~"'V'-'-'"
u .~
go:;, ~
~
0
~ :.. t.: .-;;
1:;:
Q.:=
-0. -5
--'
-:..
~
0 ~ ~
-I...
0-~1.._~>
U
'0
='
:.._=
0
:3..t:..t:
bO
C
~
0
~
=' ~
a..,
-~~,~
=
v;>
~
v ~ ~L.
:"~-r-.,~...
~::
C
QJ V ~
~ ~
.~
0
OJ :::
...'"
'"
8
-on
"O
'o.!:
'"
~
_OJ'~I..,,",I...'~~
'"
v
--~.-
~
..;...
...
~
C
u
I:
v
'~._-~-U:..-,
I..
t ;:: ':' ~ -::: 3 ~ -g 0.
0
U ~
0 I... 1:;:3
t: '" -~ U'~.bO'~
8 ~ -;;; ~ v '" 0.:=
.-:3
C ..v
-0
~
"0
~.~
~
b
~
5
I:
0
QJ ~
V
~ -;
;:: -::: '"
~
-uv~--VI:"'-t:~--=1..
~
-;;; u
v
~""
..~
-~
I.. V -' t:
u
~
'"
u
-;;
~
.~
~ 0 0 ~
"1:) t: t: '0 0 -.: ~
.'!: -~ g .c -5.~
~
-~
;'
0
--U
I..
9.
:3
...o...~
~...:::
0 ;> --O.J:)
",-;;
;
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
O ::c -; :a 3 .E .:
:31..
But relativism, MacIntyre thinks, has another cost. It makes impossible
the sort of constructive engagement between rival moral traditions
which should be our goal.
~
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
:5
>
-.: ~ --,
= ~
~-",-~cr
OJ--'"
= ClJ
0 -3
~ '"
u.c
"'..
0 ~
~ :5
0
~ U
Q.
u
>~u-,
-""'
~
u~>
Q
~
0-
Q.
u
u
"0
-'::5~~=;""...~"""..s~V)v...u
:
lU
--~
~
>~
~
~
o
~"CU.., ~ ClJ~
.c
~
~
V
.o
oo..s_~~'"
~
...~
t:
0
~
-U ~-.
'"
~
0
0
0
E
lU
'"
~
"""
;>O~_I
~
U
0
V
~
O ""u"
.so
1
-U'ClJ.
-"';>0
U""
u~.,...
-~
0
->
0
0
V) '
~
.c
;'
ci
~
'C
.o
~
-;>0
.~
-;:?
~
~
lU
~
~
'"
;0>0 ClJ 0
s..
-
:'J
0
~~".
"0
lU
-;:.0
ro
~
.c
J
I
U"'-U"'Q
"0
0
0
bO
> -::: "CU ~~
..""ClJlU.c
"""
>(
uc"'
...
..s_-~o",..:
.c~I
c...OJ'"
u.c
C
~
;
~U
-~ .Q
--V"O
-0
-::: ~
-c
;3
U
l...Q.o.c"'~
'"
U
--0
ClJ
.c
..,
~
~
I... ~
='--lU
s
U
s--'..s...lUl
~
-5
~
9:
~
=
t:
O~CU~
..sv
q.)-~
--_v.
'"
u
.:l:. 0
c
U
~
O
c
~I
.=:
0
"'1
O"'
:5Uo~
~
r.s ---~
--ObO
'"
~
",Q.~'"
.c
E...
;
~
Ub()-O.c;>O~.c"'"""",
...v
~:5
sQ.v..sv
""'" ","q.)~~I-.c
o.c~~.cvc~~,
S
~I...U~vU~
~._-~-"---:::V;3
...~
-v='
U'~-""--
--~--
-.Q
~
"';""""..s"'1...
Q
I...~o
.c
lU
.
--~
~
..lU
U
."0 ~
-Ou",
-~:=;.
~o
='
--U
",.-,
lU
"0
-0
~
@
~
-~
'"
~
lU
I...
...;3
I...lU"'~
-"'-~
.c
.-~--0
V
V
~
E
oJ::
~
U
>:s--~~~:"
:5
~
~
v~~--
~-
E
Q."""'"
-~
r.s~~lU>~:5
r-..s...~
o"'._~-oo-:I...O~-~Ou
0
0
0
on
0
~..t:
U
;>
V
'-
--vOv~~
""'
~
-..t:
:3
U..t:
-;
u
C
-;..I...
..t:
---v
;> .r::
U
'"
". '" ~.~
"'".~
~
-""-",,~V""o.~boI:O
~
bO
QJ
8
~
-5
ClJ ..s.c
'"
~
--U
on
v
,g
0
-~
~
~
.-0
-.-".
U
"';>o
--0
~:::
r-o
-:;
0
I...
Q.
I...
-U'
~
~
v
~-'"
,ClJU
=
~
0' :a;
_;3
:5
cr
~
c
u
0
c0
-
,4J
'"
'"
g
-
E
q.)
--,
:;::.3
,..-
u..
M
:5 ~v
U
~
'"
bO...
.~
;,::: -0
@ ~...
~ lU ~
vv-o...
'"
~
~
In
:;
E
~
:=:;.
~.-
~
E
~
~
~
bO
"'.=:
"'..1...
~o_~~
~
C
~
~
0'"
bO
~
bO"'--,ClJ
E
"'-..
U
~--lU;3;""
"'
"'vo_-o-
-:
""",
v
-..,-:::"'-o~bO
rT._~
I:;
",-0
0.8
Q.
3:..s
U
--~
",--~
t:
0
U
""'-"~-I...
v
b()
Ub().u --,
~
C
1:;-'
;3
.0
~
'"'
~
V
u
U
..t:
~
.--=
~'~vl::>~V
0
~
--bO
0
~
""0
v
.~
~
0
~.
.-~
u
r-
"«
--.'"
cr
-'
«
Ir
0
t:
0
"'"
v :>
~
I..
~ w -0
'"
I:
--~-
L.
.--~
~
'"
I::
v
bO
,-,
-;;;
0
.::-
~
.r::
;:!oo.'!:
u
~-;:::
-ti
~
~
In
J
«
Ir
:J
-'
~-::;-;;
0-
~
0
«
--~
0
~ .~
J
-0
0 ""
I.. ...='
Ir
~~~
~...
E. ~
:3 "0
-0
~~~
~
"'1+:",
'-
0
-0
.~
-
~
-~
u
~::",,-'~
:5
>
-.: ~ --,
= ~
~-",-~cr
OJ--'"
= ClJ
0 -3
~ '"
u.c
bO
'"
0
>
_
~
>
~
--~
--,
-"0
--
",~;3
0
s>:5
bO
E
~ ~ "0 ~
@ ~
..s ~
""...OJ
~--~
~
"'..,~.
0 ~
~ :5
0
~ U
Q.
u
>~u-,
-""'
~
Q
"'._lU~..,U
~
0-
-'::5~~=;""...~"""..s~V)v...u
E
0
bO...
u~> .~ --'iU'
>~
~
o
~"CU.., ~ ClJ~
.c
~
~
V
.o
oo..s_~~'"
~
0
Q.
u
u
"0
--~
:
lU
~
~
...~
~
-U ~---;
.c
'"
:..>
0
->
-~.;
I...~--~--"'o..c-
'"'...
t: lU U --->'"
0
-~
;'
0
-~
U""
"""
;>O~_I
~
U
~
~
0
c..:~
-uoo
"
-~
~
.=:
...Q.
...0
'"
-
-;:
.
uQ.--~
E
lU
'
U
.u ~
-~
0
s"':5_;
~"':"
-~
1..."""'
cc--",~,","ClJ
~...~Q.
u-
u.c
-='"
ClJ
"'-u"'O~
ClJ ~
E
E u."gI
...='
;3
O ""u"
~_u~O
",~~-_uuOJ
.soJ:::i"Ooo-;
1
-U'ClJ.
..s"'u
-"';>0
u~.,...
~
~
0
V) '
"0
t:
0
~
~
'C
.o
s..
~
.c
'"
~
0
lU
~
0
E
u
--0
~
t:
~I
=
u
v
q.)-~O
--_v.
U
O.c
,..-
'"
O~CU--ClJ
0
~
..sv
'"
q.)
~
-::: ~u
-c
0
~
V
s
U
s--'..s...lUl
~
-=
~
~
~~".
lU
~
~
;
.:l:. 0
U
~
c
U
0
"0
lU
0
ro
-;:.0
-;>0
.~
ci
"0
0 ~
.c
> -::: "CU ~~
..""ClJlU.c
'"
;0>0 ClJ 0
uc"'
...
>(
..s_-~o",..:
.c~I
"""
c...OJ'"
u.c
C
~U
~
-~ .Q
--V"O
-0
;3
U
l...Q.o.c"'~
'"
U
.c
..,
ClJ
~
9:
~
-5
c
0
"'1
O"'
:5Uo~
~
r.s ---~
--ObO
'"
~
.=:
.c
E...
;
~
",Q.~'"
~.c"'"""",
...v
~:5
""'" ","q.)~~I-.c
o.c~~.cvc~~,
S
~I...U~vU~
~._-~-"---:::V;3
...~
-v='
U'~-""--
--~--
sQ.v..sv
-.Q
~
"';""""..s"'1...
Q
I...~o
.c
lU
O
Ub()-O.c;>O-
I... ~
='--lU
-
-;:?
~
~
0
:'J
-~
~
0
:..
bO
~
::.
J
I
U"'-U"'Q
'::
-:::
v
...
:>
~ -~ -5
..."1:)
'"
=,"1:)
,~ "'"" ;3
...:::
g ;;:'
u
-0
8
':;
'"
~
~
~
..~
--"0
~
C;:.
~
::
~ ~ ;:: ';G -0 OJ": -5-' ; .f:. ~
t:
--~I...v,-~:"I:E"""I
~
I..
-~
U
bO
v"'O~
;::
~.r:: I- ~
:J
0
...QJ
-0 :I: ~
I-
~ -;;I:; t:
0 ~.
V
U
I..
I:";~~",~"'-~~O~
v:3 ~ V
I... ~ .;; ~
-~
--:::.,
I..
'o~.r::0:C1..
~
;..~
:::
-""'
0""
;..- -~'"
I...
~ -;;
~
v
-;;
~
.!:~-.-::::::~..t:c~r.:
'"
'"
U
I:
""
-;;;...
~~~~""
0:-:
u
v
.c 0 ~I: 0 :::
~ bo ..-~
0. OJ-:-: ~
bO
.-~
~ >- ~ --;;;
I: C -= g -~ I:; ~
~ .~ 0 ~
~ ~:!,
;:: U ""' -0''" -0..J:)
I: ~ .!: OJ
v 0. I:;
-._,~
'"
q.)I...O~...0
I...
~",-~"';""~-o;>o
-bO
0
:3 ~
~
~
~
v
1:;""
~
0.
'"
""
~.u
0.-
~
-v
~
0
~
~...
u
~
-~._~--.J:)
""0
;
-.c ~ ~-=' -~
O..t:bO bO
~
~
~
V
v:~
""
~
--~
~
v
~
5
~
v
~
-9:
~
0~
0
~~L._"'..s~
...~
~ol...u",,-o~
-~,..:5
-I... U"'OV~-u
"';"-'..
~
~
r.s
'"
v
~:"v-1...1...
()
0
s
-:-
U
000
O
C-:::""""";""~'"
V
v
s--:3
on'
--I:;
"'-
--(~~.c.coo.c..,~~.Qr.scEo-~I
'o~='~"'"
':
~
:>
","
--~
~
~ -;;; Z ~ ~
0 ..t:
..::'ft
~
~~_U'--I...U
~
~..,- ...t: ;3 ~
tU -;> -:g "@
'" lU
t: -6~ .-~
~
lU
~'u
cr
...
0
~
-5
0
-~
lUlU..slU=,
::
~
t,
~
~ClJ
v
-0
~
ClJ~"'-O3:"""o~-~""""'3:I..."""'U",:5v
""'U
-",
r.s 0- --0
",t.:b()'-""'UU
~
;3
~
ClJ
0
3:
c
;3
-~
-I...;>o~
0
-.~
E
v"'-
U---ClJ
~...",Ecr uc
E..
--",
q.)...
='
..t:'
I..
~
..t:
U V
;: '" ~
'"
~
-~
~
.-V
v
~.
u
u
v
QJ
~ '"V :;:0 '-0 .J:)QJ 0
-'"
u
I:
() t:.r::
~
...'0
I:
~
V O.J:)
I.. ;..- '"-",",~ ~V
;..- 0 ;>
bO ~...",:a""
~
2. .~ ~ =""
v C ;..I .;: t: :.. ...~
".:
0
:"QJ""
.!:.!:;..-
=
v,,,v
::
5
~
---o-"'"::~.r::
l
c"'
I..
v
~
o
u
v
~
~
0
..I
-:::
v
::
'0
8-u
v
0
-'"
t:t:
:!,...
~ v .f:. f:: :::
-U'"
-C
~
u
~;..-
0
--u;>...
~
:.._=
-;;";:::
o-~
-
-u
~
~
v '" U
Co
o..c
~
;"::
~--0"1:)
--= '" -'
"'-~ ~
0
~
~ ""'
--~
"'""
I+: ~
~
~
1:;--'"
-~
~
:;:
~
0
;:
~
};
;::
~
~
-~
~
u
=
=
0
~
~
0
5
't,
0
0
U
::
te.'"
OJ
-::;-
0
'"
U
-;;
V
",";>
.c
'"
~
:..
.r::
-~
~-'~.::
-=
-0
"- .c .~ ~ --~
~
,,-,
on '-'
"G:i -5
~
~
~
;::1..0
~
3
bC
-I..
"'--.1..'"
~ :i!:.
~.~
0
~ -ri
-V
...
u",--o",V...",
.~
.!:
-~
"'"~
:;, ;
'"
~
--'--~ -.-,
"1:)-':31:
v
a.
u
"'...
,0
0
I:
:..
~
0
'-
,:~",
o.v';;
-:
'"
~
...!;:
~
~
t:~:3""""
~~~-
~-
.I:
QJ
~
-:::
I:
::;
~
-0:::
v
te
-~
.r::,,"-VI...I:---'-"'-";;
:>
0
>- 'k~-
-0
'AJ~-~~
~
.::='cu;..-
-=
..:>
v
~
-=
I:
-=
~:';
~
;
v
""
0.
'" ---"..
--v
1..;>1..
~
-;n
",.~v-
~"C
~
0
-;;
-'"
~ ~ ~ ~
00
0.
]
E
v
t:
:"1
.9;
:..o.J:)-~v
"'--""""
0
~
:D
-""
---u.c
~
~
~
-'-t.:-'
0
v
~
;:
"0
; <::3.f:. 3 u9JE ~ ~ .= '0 .g ~ .~ ~
-bO~
~::
0
~.9;
;.;;:
0
Q.:=
-0. -5
--'
-:..
~
0 ~ ~
1:;:
~
~
~ :.. t.: .-;;
0
"'...~
'
~
:>V",o-O'~'~--;;>v'"
,-"'o::::~
0
Why is it hard for the relativist to accommodate learning from other
cultures? How should the relativist think of the claim that the moral
views of one’s own society are radically mistaken?
u",
-;..v
~
~
0
0
t:
-bO:>
"'.-"'"
-5 ~
~
0
~
on
'"
:3..t:..t:
bO
v;>
~
3 .E .:
:"~-r-.,~...
0
"O
C
QJ V ~
~ ~
.~
0
OJ :::
...'"
u
~;..-
0-~1.._~>
-I...
='
'0
a..,
U
go:;, ~
~"'V'-'-'"
u .~
-""-
~..t:~
~
~I
'o.!:
'"
~
-::: 3 ~ -g 0.
I... 1:;:3
~.bO'~
v '" 0.:=
..v
-0
:3'='
~
U
-0
I I...O:':'~t:t--I...t:"'~O
:> ::: v --~ 0
~ V
v -0
;..- I... ...""'
0 0 V
> U
v
.9;
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
v ~ ~L.
-~~,~
=
=' ~
~
0
0 ~
t: '-.: ~
-5.~
~
C
u
0
-;
~
~u
.
)
In this sense, MacIntyre compares relativism to a stance which simply
dismisses all alien cultures as inferior:
-~:5",
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
In this sense, MacIntyre compares relativism to a stance which simply
dismisses all alien cultures as inferior:
Why is it hard for the relativist to accommodate learning from other
cultures? How should the relativist think of the claim that the moral
views of one’s own society are radically mistaken?
MacIntyre’s view is that the falsity of relativism is a kind of
presupposition of constructive engagement with others who have
radically different moral views.
This is, in a way, the reverse of a very commonly held view.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
This is, in a way, the reverse of a very commonly held view.
This is the view that links moral absolutism with intolerance for the views of others, and relativism with
tolerance.
This view is confused for other reasons as well. For one thing, if what we want is a view which makes
sense of the fact that tolerance for diverse views is a universal good, then we should clearly go for
moral absolutism, not moral relativism -- after all, moral relativism denies that there are any such things
as universal goods.
The other side of the same coin is that moral relativism seems to make some kinds of intolerance
immune from criticism -- how is the relativist to explain why intolerance in a culture which promotes it
is wrong, not only for us, but also for members of that culture?
This is related to a general worry about moral relativism. Quite often, we want to make claims to the
effect that certain actions were wrong, even though the actions were not wrong from the point of view
of the society of the people performing the actions. Consider, for example:
It was wrong for property owners in the antebellum South to own slaves.
The relativist might explain the fact that sentences like this seem true to us by saying that, when we
make claims like this, we are really saying that this was wrong, according to our moral code.
Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in
themselves”, but only relative to a person or group. An
action is right relative to a person or group if and only if
the action is right according to the standards adopted
by that person or group.
Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions
are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on
the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person
who happens to be describing those facts.
Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions
are right and wrong.
This is related to a general worry about moral relativism. Quite often, we want to make claims to the
effect that certain actions were wrong, even though the actions were not wrong from the point of view
of the society of the people performing the actions. Consider, for example:
It was wrong for property owners in the antebellum South to own slaves.
The relativist might explain the fact that sentences like this seem true to us by saying that, when we
make claims like this, we are really saying that this was wrong, according to our moral code.
But in a way, this only postpones the problem. We also want to say that our moral code is superior, in
this respect, to that operative among property owners in the antebellum South. And we do not mean
just to be making the trivially true claim that our moral code is superior to theirs by the standards of
our moral code. But, if moral relativism is true, there does not seem to be any other true claim that we
could be making.
This raises the question: if moral relativism is false, what does it mean to say that, for example, capital
punishment is wrong for me?
Aside from the claim that it is wrong for me to engage in capital punishment -- which is not what is
meant -- it is hard to see what this sort of claim could mean -- other than the claim that capital
punishment is (absolutely) wrong, or the claim that I (absolutely) believe that it is.