Thank you, Sami Naimat, for a classic question.
Some people think that morality varies from person to person. This philosophical position is called moral relativism. There are truths about morality, according to moral relativism, and the truth depends on someone or some society. Even if you and I disagree about morality, we can still both be correct.
To see why I disagree with moral relativism, consider our species. While it is true that people come in different shapes and sizes and have different ethnicities and religions, it is undeniable that we are all equally human. From human equality, I suggest that the same moral law applies equally to each human being. If some action is wrong for me, surely it is also wrong for you. If an action is morally permissible for me, then surely it is permissible for you too. How could different moral laws govern us when we are the same kind of thing?
Moral absolutism is the position that moral judgments are absolutely true and do not depend on someone or some society. According to moral absolutism, if you and I disagree about what is moral, we can’t both be correct – one of us must be wrong.
I disagree with moral relativism, but I am not a moral absolutist. Why must all of morality be either relativistic or absolute? In my opinion, there are two kinds of moral judgment: one kind is relativistic, the other is absolute.
I think moral claims about abortion (for example) are relativistic: whether abortion is moral depends on context. How did the individual become pregnant? How far along is the pregnancy? What is the motivation for terminating the pregnancy? I am a moral relativist regarding the morality of abortion. But I reject the idea that all moral claims are relativistic.
I think moral claims about sexual assault (for example) are absolute: it is absolutely immoral to rape someone no matter the person, time, place, or other features of context. Since I believe some behaviors (e.g. sexual assault) are absolutely immoral, I reject moral relativism.
There are many moral claims that I think count as absolute; for example, claims regarding sexual assault, slavery, torture, child pornography, stalking. If moral relativism is true, then none of these are really wrong. The wrongness of these actions depends on what some person or society says. If moral relativism is true, then a slave owner’s moral code is as subjectively true as anyone else’s, and we have no right to impose our moral judgments on them.
Ironically, a moral relativist is imposing their moral judgment on others when they claim that all of us produce our own moral code. Doesn’t the position that people are the source of their moral code count as an absolute moral law?
Morality is serious and a seriously complicated topic. It would be surprising to find that we should hold black and white views on it.
My opinion is this: some moral claims are relativistic, but I reject moral relativism; and some moral claims are absolute, but I reject moral absolutism.
What do you think? Is morality a relativist concept or an absolute one? Let us know in the comments.
If you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You can find us on Twitter (@armchair_o) or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: Allegory of the morality of earthly things, attributed to Tintoretto (1585)
I teach philosophy at St. Louis Community College, Meramec. I have an associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree in philosophy. I love thinking about knowledge (the field called "epistemology") and ethics (especially taking interest in convincing people to do the right thing for the right reason). My heroes include Socrates and Kant.
Hey this is absolutely correct, I’ve been searching for a bridge to neutralize the two extremes, your argument shed the light I was looking for. Thank you for this!