Skip to main content

Moral relativism

I posted four criticisms of "politically correct" moral relativism. Some of you think this sort of relativism is entirely a straw man. Not entirely. I agree it's influence is vastly exaggerated (as I'll be explaining shortly).I have come across only a couple of academics that signed up to it (one was an anthropologist).

It tends to be undergrads that spout it. Schools are often blamed. Marianne Talbot of Oxford University says her students

have been taught to think their opinion is no better than anyone else’s, that there is no truth, only truth-for-me. I come across this relativist view constantly – in exams, in discussion and in tutorials – and I find it frightening: to question it amounts, in the eyes of the young, to the belief that it is permissible to impose your views on others.

I must say it's only 5-10% of my students that express the view. I think some have been taught it as a way of being "tolerant" (possibly because it gets teachers out of awkward situations when teaching several religions. "But sir, which religion is true - is Jesus God, or not?" "They are all true, lad - it's true for Christians, false for Muslims"), while others simply recognize in it a useful rhetorical move. You patiently expose the flaws in their argument, but then they hit you with "Well, it's true for me" or "Well, that's my truth, anyway" etc.

The only person I have ever come across who (so I'm told) really goes for blanket hard-core if-you-believe-it-then-it's-true relativism, is the actress Shirley MacLaine.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm rather shocked to read that you're accused of attacking strawmen here. No one really holds these views? Let's see ...

Of my American undergraduate students, pretty much everyone thinks of moral relativism as the only acceptable position; according to the majority, only evil bigots would proclaim that morality could be in any way absolute or universal. The only students who disagree with them tend to be deeply religious. And, again in my experience, things get worse in Europe (probably due to a much weaker impact of religion): this summer I led a discussion on just war, and students from Poland, Turkey, Slovakia, Croatia, Austria etc. were *all* shocked to hear that a philosopher like myself could even entertain the possibility of "moral absolutism". The cries of "who are we to judge" arose, and it took a lot of persuasion on my part (by employing a combination of four reasons prof. Law lists below) to at least open them to the possibility that moral relativism is perhaps not the only reasonable option.

The situation is the same, if not worse, among people who've already graduated from college, and are not forced to ponder these problems any longer. They look at my claims that moral relativism is incoherent (and often morally problematic) with a mixture of pity and anger: "you poor deluded soul", or, alternatively: "how dare you be such and intolerant, self-involved bigot!"

given all these experiences, i think prof. Law's posts make perfect sense.
Anonymous said…
After a couple of years back in America, the belief in moral relativism as demonstrated in my everyday interactions among the intelligent, educated, liberal, socially conscious was one of my biggest shockers.

For some reason, many of these people seem to equate morality with religion, as if there were no moral plumbline outside of belief in God.

But if you say, well, is murder relative? or rape? or child abuse? they might accuse one of nitpicking.

It seems in this context that the worst thing one can be accused of in the current climate is 'judgementalism'. But surely, one of the things we want to cultivate as adults is good judgement.

Which by definition involves choice and discernment. Good judgement weighs the moral good, chooses one thing over another even if only in that moment.

I am not sure where we go from here without it.
Anonymous said…
Hi Stephen,

I agree that most students don't ereally embrace moral relativism. As soon as you push them their absolutist views come to the fore (as in - of course all moral views should be tolerated). But what bothers me is the sloppy thinking that leads most to believe they embrace relativism, and that in doing so they are doing the right thing.

I frequently give talks to schools (I know you do too). And the first thing I do is say what is meant by 'moral relativism' and 'moral absolutism', and then I ask them to show their hands to say whether they're relativists or absolutists. Usually the room is full of the former (until the end of my talk anyway)!

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist