data/en/crtw_106.txt

## §1. What is moral relativism?

Moral relativism says that (1) there are no objective normative facts, and (2)
what is right or wrong is relative to particular societies or persons, or
moral frameworks or perspectives. For example, clitoridectomy, the mutilation
of the sexual organ of a young female, is practiced in certain communities in
Africa and the Middle East. It causes a lot of pain and often has long term
psychological and health consequences. Should such a practice be banned? A
relativist will say that clitoridectomy is only wrong when see from a Western
liberal perspective. But it is quite alright relative to certain African or
Middle Eastern traditional belief systems. There is no objective answer as to
whether it is right or wrong, whether it should or should not be banned.
Before continuing, you might want to try out this test :

  * Are you moral beliefs consistent?

## §2. Non-interventionist moral relativism is inconsistent

Some people are attracted to moral relativism because they think it represents
toleration and liberal thinking. A moral relativist might think that we should
not interfere with other people's lives or moral values. He might think that
if there is no objective fact to determine whether abortion is acceptable,
then we should not interfere with a woman's request to have an abortion.

This is actually an inconsistent position. If there are really no objective
moral truths, then there is no objective answer as to whether something should
or should not be allowed. It is inconsistent to say that there are no
objective facts that determine whether something ought to be done or not, and
at the same time claim that abortion ought to be allowed, since to make the
latter claim is to claim that something indeed ought to be allowed.

When this inconsistency is pointed out, some moral relativists might say that
they are only affirming non-interference from their own perspective. But the
problem is that from other perspectives, interference might not be undesirable
and might even be necessary, and the relativist would then have no way to
engage the other party in a rational discussion as to what the right thing to
do is. For example, someone might think that abortion is wrong relative to his
moral theory, and that all violent means are justified in order to prevent
women from having abortions, including the killing of doctors and nurses who
might participate in such matters. For a moral relativist, such a position is
just as valid as thinking that abortion should be protected, and so no reason
can be given to stop any such violent campaign against abortion. The obvious
conclusion is that it would be a big mistake to think that moral relativism
supports any kind of liberal moral outlook. Under relativism, any non-liberal
or absurd position is just as valid as any other.

## §3. Do not confuse moral contextualism with relativism

Notice that moral relativism should not be confused with the claim that what
is right or wrong depends on the context. For example, a moral realist might
refuse to judge whether abortion is right or wrong because she thinks that
abortion is permissible under certain situations (e.g. rape) but not
permissible under other situations, say when a woman is 8 months pregnant out
of her own freewill. But this is not relativism, for it is supposed to be an
objective fact that abortion is permissible in cases of rape. A moral
relativist will however insist that it is still a relative matter whether
abortion is permissible in such a situation.

Contextualism urges us to be cautious with regard to moral claims. Is lying
wrong? That depends on the situation. Lying to young children is sometimes of
no big consequence. Is killing always wrong? Perhaps not when you have to kill
somone attacking you out of self-defense. Generalizations about morality
should take into account special situations. But being cautious about general
moral claims is not the same thing as accepting moral relativism.

Can you think of any exceptions to these claims?

  1. If someone has committed a murder, then that person should be given a fair trial.
  2. Students should study hard and get a good grade.
  3. We should never toture any innocent babies just for fun and for no other reason.

## §4. What is moral absolutism?

_Moral absolutism_ is the view that some actions are morally required or
morally prohibited regardless of the situation and the potential consequences.

For example, the famous philosopher Kant is a moral absolutist with regard to
telling the truth. He seems to think that lying is always wrong, no matter the
consequences. In the essay "On a Supposed Right to Lie", Kant says that we
should not lie, even if there is a murderer at the door asking you whether the
innocent victim is in your house. The moral absolutist might say that perhaps
one should also call the police or to warn the victim, but the bottom line is
that one should never lie.

Understandably, many people find Kant's position bizarre, and there are
probably very few people who are moral absolutists with regard to lying. But
moral absolutism with regard to other actions are not difficult to find. For
example, many people would think that incest is wrong, even if the parties
involved genuinely love each other. Others might also hold some form of moral
absolutism with regard to abortion and homosexuality, believing (perhaps for
religious reasons) that they are never justified.

Consider also the 1987 _United Nations Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment_. The second paragraph of
Article 2 says,

> "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat
> of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be
> invoked as a justification of torture."

Notice that this rule explicitly says that torture is never justified. A moral
absolutist with regard to torture will agree with this rule. The absolutist
would say that even in a situation when a terrorist has planted a bomb that is
about to explode and kill many innocent people, it is still not permissible to
torture the terrorist in order to extract information as to where the bomb is.

## §5. What is moral contextualism?

The opposite of moral absolutism is _moral contextualism_. This is the view
that the very same action can be right in one situation (context), but wrong
in a different situation.

Obviously, moral contextualism with regard to an action X is inconsistent with
moral absolutism with regard to X. Unlike Kant, most of us would probably
think that when a murderer wants to find out where a person is in order to
kill him, we should lie if it would save that person's life. But we might also
think it is wrong for government officials to lie to its citizens, e.g. about
corruption. This would be to reject moral absolutism with regard to lying.

Sometimes people say that morality is not black and white, and it is possible
that moral contextualism is what some of them might have in mind. For certain
actions described generally, it might be impossible to say whether they are
right or wrong, and that it all depends on the details of the particular
situation.

Notice that both moral absolutism and contextualism agree that morality is
objective. They both agree that there are cases where certain actions are
objectively right or objectively wrong. _Moral relativism_ would deny this.

The author Shickle wrote in a paper "On a supposed right to lie [to the
public] from benevolent motives: communicating health risks to the public."
the following passage:

> There are three main categories of rationale for withholding information or
> telling lies: if overwhelming harm can only be averted through deceit;
> complete triviality such that it is irrelevant whether the truth is told; a
> duty to protect the interests of others.

Come up with your own examples for illustrating these three types of
situations.

__previous tutorial __next tutorial