Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Morality is relative."
people who say morality is relative almost never live that way. No one thinks slavery was right "for those who practiced it", or that a mugging is wrong only "in the victim's opinion". Relativism tends to appear selectively, when criticism reaches one's own habit. And saying "that's your truth" confuses taste, which is personal, with harm to another, which isn't.
Note: this chapter also answers "Everyone has their own truth", which was merged into it.
Short answer
Almost no one really believes morality is relative. You wouldn't think a mugging is wrong only "in the opinion" of the person mugged, or that slavery was right for those who practiced it. Relativism shows up when criticism reaches one's own habit. And there's a difference between taste and harm: preferring chocolate ice cream is taste; making someone suffer isn't.
For children
Liking chocolate or strawberry ice cream is a matter of taste: everyone picks their own. But hurting someone isn't a matter of taste. If someone pushes you, it doesn't help for them to say "in my opinion, that didn't hurt". When someone suffers, it isn't just an opinion.
"Is there anything you think is really wrong, and not just in your opinion?"
Como pode aparecer
"Morality is a social construct."
"Right and wrong depend on who's looking."
"That's your opinion."
"Everyone has their own truth."
"You think one thing, I think another."
"There are no moral facts independent of perspectives."
"It's cultural; criticizing it is ethnocentric." (which is D2)
The strongest version
"Morality is a social construct. Right and wrong depend on who's looking. That's your truth; I have mine."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Cultures and people disagree deeply about moral questions.
- P2There's no method everyone accepts for resolving these disagreements.
- P3If disagreements can't be resolved, there's no objective moral truth.
- CSo condemning the eating of animals is just one opinion among others.
P1 and P2 are largely true. The problem lies in P3: disagreement doesn't prove there's no truth, and anyone who accepts P3 would have to accept that nothing is really wrong, not even what they themselves condemn.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, and the conclusion is applied selectively.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes three different ideas:
Idea Is it true? People disagree about morality Yes, it's a fact Some questions are a matter of personal taste Yes: favorite food, style, music Every moral question is just opinion Doesn't follow from the above, and almost no one accepts it - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's self-refuting.
"There's no moral truth" or "no one should impose their morality" are claims meant to hold for everyone, which contradicts relativism itself.
2. It's usually applied selectively.
Those who use the argument against veganism rarely use it against theft, racism or violence against children. If relativism were taken seriously, those condemnations would also be "just opinion".
3. Disagreement isn't the absence of truth.
People disagreed about the shape of the Earth and about slavery. The existence of disagreement doesn't show that all positions are equally valid.
4. Taste and harm to others are different things.
Matters of taste affect only the one choosing. When there's a victim, the choice stops being merely personal (E1).
5. Relativism would rule out moral progress.
If there's no right and wrong, the abolition of slavery wasn't progress, just a change of opinion. Almost no one accepts that.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Rachels, *The Elements of Moral Philosophy* Presents and criticizes cultural relativism: disagreement doesn't prove there's no moral truth McGraw-Hill; chapter on the challenge of cultural relativism PhilPapers Survey 2020 Most philosophers accept or lean toward moral realism Shows relativism is a minority position among experts - d
The strongest counter-reply: sophisticated anti-realism
The most serious version isn't the relativism of "everyone has their own truth", but philosophical anti-realist theories that say morality depends on human attitudes, without that making everything arbitrary.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
These theories don't make everything permissible.
Those who hold them still condemn cruelty and injustice.
They also value consistency.
If our attitudes condemn unnecessary suffering, they should condemn it in animals too.
The debate changes level, not outcome.
Even under anti-realism, there are better and worse reasons to act.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Self-refutation
Selective application
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
From disagreement to no truth
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing taste with harm
Biases
Motivated reasoning
Relativism appears when it protects the habit
General literature on motivated cognition
Meat paradox
Relativizing eases the tension between values and practice
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if there's moral disagreement, everyone has their own truth".
If it applied to…SlaveryTap to see
It was right for those who practiced it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Domestic violenceTap to see
It would be wrong only in the victim's opinion
No one accepts this
If it applied to…RacismTap to see
It would be one truth among others
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Racism, violence, corruption.
And wouldn't accept that it's "just the attacker's opinion".
Someone who thinks everything is relative shouldn't be outraged by anything.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There's something true and important here: moral questions are hard, reasonable people disagree, and it takes humility not to treat one's own convictions as absolute certainties. It's also true that many questions are matters of taste and shouldn't be moralized.
But
But humility isn't relativism. Recognizing that we may be wrong is a reason to examine our practices more closely, not to declare them all equally valid.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Attempts to Justify Speciesism That Appeal to Metaethics Vol. I, ch. 15
- If Ethics Is an Invention, Is It Just to Disadvantage… Vol. I, ch. 11
References
Philosophy
- The Elements of Moral Philosophy.
- Philosophers on philosophy: the 2020 PhilPapers survey.