Moral Relativism on the Surface

Moral Relativism

On the surface moral relativism seems not only plausible but good: in creating tolerant and open-minded social values we avoid conflicts with other cultures and resist false superiority. However, as James Rachels points out in the Elements of Moral Philosophy and especially in Chapter 2, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," the theory of moral relativism rests on spurious logic. Rachels also shows how morals do not differ as much as they seem to across cultures, and the reasoning behind different traditions is generally the same in every culture. Moral relativism also denies the existence or even the possibility of a universal moral standard. Yet clearly some moral standards are essential for the survival of a community, let alone a complex society. Behaviors that inhibit good communication, or which create inordinate chaos are immoral in any society for practical reasons. Even if morality is entirely divorced from religion, absolute moral standards can and do exist.

Another key reason why Rachels challenges moral relativism is that it precludes the possibility of moral progress. Substituting the word "time" for "culture," a relativist could argue that no moral code is right, good, true or universal across all time. If morals change, they don't necessarily change for the better because there is no such thing as "better" or "worse" in terms of morality. Rachels claims that in spite of the flaws still extant in modern society it is undoubtedly more enlightened by some standards. For example, women are more or less treated like human beings, whereas only a hundred years ago no female could vote. In some cases, females were excluded from receiving an education or being able to work outside the home. Unless a person can argue that the suppression of half the human population is somehow beneficial then Rachel's theory holds true: moral progress is possible.

Moral progress is not only possible, it is also desirable. Women's rights, religious tolerance, and strict laws prohibiting discrimination and hate crime can all be considered more evolved moralities. One of the reasons why Western culture assumes an attitude of smugness is because of the truth of moral progress. However, as Rachels warns, moral progress should not be confused with absolutism. Western society can be wrong and probably is wrong on a number of moral or ethical issues. Also, the social norms Westerners condemn in others do not differ so greatly from our own. As Rachels points out, the values behind moral beliefs are usually strikingly similar across cultures, even if the rules for acceptable behavior differ greatly. If a society prohibits women from working outside the home it may be because of the perceived need for regular childcare and because women bear children it is assumed they are naturally suitable for childrearing. We might not like it that the Eskimos leave their elderly to die alone in the snow, or kill female babies, but as Rachels points out, we never have to face the kinds of choices nomadic Eskimos do. Rachels also stresses an important fact: Eskimos do not kill babies indiscriminately or because they like to. In fact, to do so would probably be morally reprehensible in their society as well as ours. Infanticide is a "last resort," an undesirable practice used to ensure social stability.

Social stability is not in itself a good benchmark for moral standards, though. Using the example of women: women in patriarchal societies have few civil rights or liberties. Those restrictions are viewed as essential for the stability of the society. Yet a closer examination would reveal that maintaining social order by restricting the rights and freedoms of half of the population cannot be considered moral for several reasons. First, coercion is necessary to uphold that set of values. Just as coercion is required to maintain a slave labor force, so too is coercion required to keep women subordinate to men. Second, extending the analogy, slavery also ensures social stability. The plantation south was in many respects a cohesive and stable society with rigid social hierarchies. Rule-breakers received swift punishment. Deviation from the norm was not tolerated by law or by social convention. Just because a moral standard helps create a stable society does not mean that moral standard is just, good, or right. Finally, the use of coercion itself denotes an unnatural moral standard. It takes relatively little coercion to ensure that most people don't murder or steal. Most children internalize the types of moral standards that Rachels generally accepts as universal. By extension, some moral standards may be universal throughout time.

Rachels indirectly distinguishes between moral relativism and cultural relativism. Moral relativism assumes the total lack of universal ethical truths, the lack of any benchmark to measure right and wrong. Cultural relativism may refer to behaviors, customs and traditions that do not carry any moral stigma. Preferring potatoes over corn, or goat meat over chicken, is one way of describing cultural relativism that is not necessarily moral unless one culture believes it wholly immoral not to eat a certain type of meat. However, the ban on eating cloven-hooved animals in the Old Testament has little rational morality attached to it. As Rachels points out in Chapter 4, "Does Morality Depend on Religion?" The will of God expressed in religious text is not necessarily a sound base for logical moral arguments.

One of Rachels' main criticisms of moral relativism is its unsound logic. Just because a culture believes something to be true does not make it so. It is one thing to respect cultural differences and yet another to assume that the differences preclude value judgments. Moral progress evolves when a society changes its norms from within, to create social values that are rooted more in reason and common sense than in outmoded tradition. As Rachels points out, some societies may cling to the belief that the Earth is flat. Their belief is not morally wrong but it is nevertheless incorrect. To hold cultural relativism as the ultimate standard is to become unintelligent. Morality, like science, can point to proven truths. Science evolves: what was believed true even a decade ago can be disproved today. Similarly, morality evolves. What was acceptable behavior last year may not be acceptable a decade from now.