Learning Objectives:

Student will be able to:

• Define relativism

• Name and define two types of ethical relativism

• Define absolutism

• State insights offered by relativism and absolutism

• State the criticism of relativism and absolutism

• Explain Kreeft's critique of relativism

• State some traits of an ethical person per Abraham Maslow

Relativism:  the view that all moral rules and principles have no objective or universal validity, but have validity only to the culture in which they are practiced.

What are the two types of ethical relativism per Hinnman?

Relativism:  A relativist would say, "all is relative. All values are a matter of personal preference  - whether it's right to smoke, drink, do drugs or have sex..."

People have different opinions and feelings about what is morally acceptable at any given place, and people's opinions may even change with time.

For example, isn't it just a matter of personal opinion as to whether I  have to or should  share  my present, a small box of four  gourmet chocolates ,with  my family - and what about white lies - should I tell Mary her bright purple and red spotted dress  is too loud? Doesn't it seem like it's all relative at times? Does it really make any difference?

What is absolutism?

The opposite of relativism is absolutism. Absolutism says there is only one set of correct moral standards, applicable to all. There is only one single truth.   This is seen in the divine rights of kings and in some religions.

Ethical Relativism	Ethical Absolutism
Insights offered:  On the Positive Side We need tolerance and understanding We are not to pass judgements on other cultures until we understand them Reasonable people differ on issues (Hinnman)	Insights offered: On the Positive Side Tells us there are times when we need to make judgements Tells us that some things just are not tolerable, like child abuse (Hinnman).
Criticism of If everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, then opposite and conflicting positions could both be right at the same time. If there were no ethical and objective  way for evaluating specific incidents, then things like domestic abuse, child abuse, rape, slavery, discrimination  become matters of personal opinion.   How could a country begin to make laws to protect its citizens?	Criticism of Critics claim it is not possible to know or prove that your truth is the absolute  truth - and that your interpretation of the Truth or of God's will or of the Bible is the only correct one...

There is also a middle-or-the-road view: Ethical Pluralism

Ethical Pluralism defined: "The acceptance of the coexistence in a society of several different ethical value systems  whether or not they actually contradict one another" (Solomon 358).

• Some actions are prohibited;  they are just  not permissible

• Some actions are to be tolerated:  Actions and values where legitimate differences are possible.

So an ethical pluralist may not tolerate rape, child abuse, and discrimination against minorities, but he would still be semi-comfortable  and tolerate living in a society that has different customs , values, religions so that we could all live peacefully together.  It's like living in a mixed salad rather than living  in V-8 juice.   However there comes a different point of tolerance for everyone: pot smoking, or hard drugs, .  There will come an end limit to tolerance where "a certain practice is so reprehensible that good and suppressing it overrides the imperative to be tolerant" (292 Solomon).  

What is true and what is false?

Truth is the conformity  between the intellect and reality.
False implies a lack of conformity. Ideas do not correspond to and are different from reality.

 There is no reality outside your own ideas, you can never be wrong. Therefore, if you create a fictional story, you can never be wrong about any detail, because it's all made up.  However, if you write a biography, you can be wrong.  You can also be wrong about math answers or how a person feels because that involves and corresponds to something outside of your own imagination  and outside of yourself.

If moral values were nothing more than what I think and what you think, then no one would be wrong about them. Being wrong means your ideas are different from reality. 

 

Peter Keeft:  "Aren't Right and Wrong up to the individual conscience? " Morality is something real, not just something made up; something outside our minds, not inside them;  something independent of what we think,  not something dependent on what we think.... Conscience means what we think and feel about morality. Conscience is our power to understand right and wrong (Romans 9:1) Just as our eyes do not make light, our conscience does not make right and wrong, but is aware of right and wrong." It discovers  and understands morality. He then asks what the ultimate reason would be why morality is a matter of objective truth and not just feeling, and replies, "Because the source of morality is God. He is the Author of the moral law.. Even before the Ten  Commandments were written down, God impressed on the human conscience the knowledge or right and wrong (Genesis 3: 1-24).   That knowledge is innate. Conscience is God's mouthpiece in our souls. That's why we must never ignore our conscience. It is one of God's ways of communicating with us." He continues to inform us that the conscience is fallible (Prov 16:25) and misinformed and misguided consciences do make mistakes.

So  how and where does one search for truth and arrive at truth? 
The Judeo-Christian tradition tells its people God is the source of truth and truth can be found in the Bible. Its followers may go to the Bible. In Islam, for example, the Ulama, or clergy, give the definitive interpretation of Allah's will.  (What should I do and what is right are answered by "What Allah wills." )  However, as is evidenced by the variety of religions, the emphasis and interpretation frequently differ. 

Atheists either find, discover or make their own truth. (Freud, Sartre, Bertrand Russell)

This bring us back to, is everything relative?

So is it fair to say that certain actions are always absolutely wrong, regardless of time, place and circumstance? (like child abuse).  If two people can arrive at the conclusion that there is even just one absolute, then a major hole has been poked in the balloon of relativism - that ALL is relative.

When relativism is adopted there is no need to agonize over moral decisions. One is relieved of  burdensome responsibility  of finding  and living the truth - because after all, everything is relative (Falikowski  2). 

Questions for discussion

• Does the common person know it is wrong to abuse and molest a child ?
• Does the first grade child it's wrong to cheat on a test?
• How do our children know what is right and wrong when they haven't taken an ethics test?
• Does ethics depend on religion? 
• Can we know what is right apart from revelation from God?
• Aren't all ethical idea relative to our culture?
• How can we know if an ethical idea is true?
• Are there moral absolutes, things that are always good or bad? If so, name some
• How can we take God's divine commands and treat them as light topics of conversation?
• If through reasoning we come to a higher truth, can we say God's commands are wrong?
• And for people that are relativists, how can we have a productive moral dialogue when each enters the conversation believing he is right?
• But if all is relative, isn't there no real right or wrong?
• How and why does one become moral -(by education, grace, luck)
• Can one really teach another to be moral???

These are all questions we'll be discussion and so many more like - What values do capital punishment  friends and foes share? Don't we all share desires to achieve what is best for our society, our country, the victims, and the offenders and our future grandchildren? How is justice best accomplished and served in the short run and long run?

Additional information and links on ethical relativism from Ethics Update