|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sian asked:
|
|
Is relativism a doctrine hostile to ethics?
|
|
============
|
|
As so often, it helps a great deal in answering such questions to know that you mean. Relativism in
ethics (ethical relativism) is the philosophical view that there are no "valid" or "correct" universal
standards of right and wrong, or of good and bad. This kind of ethical relativism should be contrasted
with the view that there are, in fact, no universal standards leaving aside the question of whether
there are any which are "valid." This last kind of relativism is known as "cultural relativism." This
second issue is one that can only be settled by anthropological and sociological investigation.
|
|
Is ethical relativismhostile to ethics? Clearly it is if you identify ethics with ethical absolutism, the view
that there are "valid" or correct universal standards of what is right or wrong, good or bad. But the
ethical relativist will say, "I am not maintaining that there are no valid ethical values, which would be
hostile to ethics, but I am maintaining only that these values are valid only relative to particular
societies. What I am saying is that what is ethical (not only what is thought ethical, but what really is
ethical) in one society need not be ethical in a different society." Therefore, the ethical relativist claims
that although value judgements can be correct or incorrect, their correctness or incorrectness must
always be qualified as relative to a particular society.
|
|
Compare this view with the claim that whether an object is to the left of you, or to the right of you, is
relative to your position in relation to the object. Call this "positional relativism." If an object is to my
left, it is not just because I thinkit is to my left. It is not subjectivewhether of not it is or isn't to my left,
It really is to my left. But whether it is or is not to my left is relativeto my position "relative" to the
object. Is relativism of position "hostile" to positional "absolutism", that it makes no difference to
whether an object is to my left or right where it is relative to me. Yes, it is.
|
|
You should not take me as saying that ethical relativism is true as "positional relativism" is true
(although I am inclined to think it is) but only that ethical relativism is like "positional relativism."
|
|
Kenneth Stern
|
|