Absolutism vs Relativism

Lesson Outcomes
1. Define what is absolutism, relativism, propositions, truth, falsity, and states of affairs
2. Describe the different types of propositions and show how truth and knowledge are related to
them
3. Show how “near” and “almost” absolutes exist and how human beings can relate them to their
moral lives
Discuss this comic strip. Who’s right?
 The meaning of absolute
 Absolute means variously perfect, complete, certain.
Not limited by restrictions or exceptions. Not to be
doubted or questioned.

 Difficult to prove an absolute supernatural being

Is Morality
exists or the presence of absolutes (laws) in nature,
let alone “natural moral laws.”

Absolute or The meaning of relative

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.
 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 morality.
 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

Proves or “Facts” Supporting Cultural Absolutism

 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.
 Discussion Question
Do you think morals are culturally absolute or culturally relative? Why?
 Neutrality and Tolerance
 Does relativism entail that ‘anything goes’? It seems to imply tolerance.
 But this has limits – should we tolerate everything?
 How can we continue to hold our own moral beliefs?
 Does morality become a matter of taste? Does it lack authority?
 Does Moral Relativism Imply Tolerance?
 Ethical relativism seems to promote tolerance should be promoted since we should
respect other cultures’ moral codes
 PROBLEM: Being neutral is neither right nor wrong… so why must we be tolerant
of other cultures’ practices?
 Example: If I am a relativist, it is not wrong for my country to wage war on
Islamic countries simply because we don’t like their religion. Nothing is right or
wrong independent of my countries’ values
 Relativists could be intellectually lazy and lack moral courage
 Example: If I’m a relativist, I don’t need to examine my own moral assumptions
nor should I challenge other people’s norms
Civil Disobedience
 If relativism promotes tolerance, then why
are people engaged in civil disobedience?
 100 years ago, women were not allowed to
go to work because they were “incapable
of complex reasoning”
 60 years ago, segregation of black people
in America was considered natural
 Evaluation of these Theories
Moral relativism
 Just 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.
 Propositions and Truth
 Propositions – Meaningful statements describing states of affairs which must be either true or false
 States of affairs – Occurrences, events or happenings that either occur or not. They are neither true
or false
 A Proposition is TRUE if the state of affairs did occur (“It is raining now,” “I am listening to Kit’s
lecture”)

Are there any absolute truths?

 Truth is not dependent or contingent upon our ability to know at a given time.
 Just beca
 Truth and falsity are absolute - Truth is based on whether state of affairs occur
 Types of Propositions
1. Analytic propositions
 Logical truths – law of non-contradiction, true by definition of terms. Ex: “No circles are squares,” “all triangles are
three sided.”

2. 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).
 
3. Empirical propositions
 State of affairs that occur in the external world. True by evidence of the senses.
 
4. 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.
 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 – they
express only feelings and attitudes and have no real basis in fact

Problems with Emotive theory

John Hospers points out that moral propositions can have:
 purpose or intention
 effects of propositions on hearers
 actual meaning 

 So, if a moral proposition can have these attributes, then not all moral propositions are solely
emotive. Emotivist theory exaggerates its claims.
 Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy

 If we say moral propositions are not any different from empirical

propositions, then we are committing a “naturalistic fallacy,” i.e,
trying to get an “ought” from an “is.”
 Named by philosopher G.E. Moore back in the early 20th century
 FYI, this was also argued by David Hume back in the 17th
century (Is-Ought Gap)

 In moral reasoning, prescriptive claims (claims containing the idea of

should or ought) may show up as moral obligations that direct us to
engage in or avoid some specific behavior
 Marriage is always been between a man and woman, so it’s not
natural for homosexuals to get married
 “Is” is Descriptive (an empirical proposition) and the “ought” is
prescriptive (a value) creates a “gap” between value judgements
with facts of nature
 “Is-Ought” Problem
 There is a logical gap between statements of what "ought" to be, following statements regarding
what "is"
 The first often following the second without any kind of explanation regarding why they are logical or
correct.
 Just because someone has knowledge of how the world is (descriptive statements), this doesn't
automatically prove that s/he knows how the world ought to be (prescriptive statements) and it is in
fact impossible to derive the second based solely on the information of the first
 SO… in the study of Ethics, we can’t just use factual statements to form an evaluative
judgement

 BUT some moral propositions can STILL be clearly and logically inferred from empirical
propositions through a series of pertinent facts surrounding a moral situation
 Moral propositions as types of Empirical Propositions
 Though not conclusively provable, we could consider that moral propositions are empirical
propositions with value judgments.

Normative moral statements

 Some possibility that the statement “he is a good man” could be thought similar to “that is a green
table?” But what does it mean to be “good?”
 Remember, normative statements describes things – so we will have to describe and define what
“good” is

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.  
 Example: Propositions against killing human beings
 Could we make some case for moral propositions in “humans should never kill other humans”?
 Can we use empirical evidence to conclusive show that this proposition is known to be true?
 What do you think?
 Another example: Godzilla is destroying buildings

What is the state of affairs here (the “is”)?

And what is the “Ought” here? (The Moral Proposition)
 Problems with Moral Propositions
 There is tension between true propositions and human actions - Just because you ought not to
kill doesn’t mean people will not kill

 What if the propositions conflict with one another? – example: do not kill conflicts with do not
lie

 Even relativism adheres to one absolute: There are no absolutes

 But perhaps all moral theories require SOME SORT OF absolute.

 Near or Almost Absolutes
 The greatest problem in the absolutism vs relativism debate is how to be introduce stability
(absolutes) into morality while still allowing for some freedom and creativity (relativism)
 There is a need to match propositions with the complexity of human thoughts, feelings, and
actions
 SO… Perhaps the best to aim for are near or almost absolutes - making sure we justify all the
exceptions.
 Example: Do not kill other humans.
 Exceptions: in self-defense or defense of innocents.
 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.