An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity - always yours

MORAL RELATIVISM 163
perspectives. For example, some people think abortion is wrong, whereas others
think it is fine. Who is correct? Moral relativism says there is no objectively
correct answer. Abortion is acceptable relative to some perspectives and wrong
relative to others. There is no ultimate or universal perspective from which to decide
whether abortion is really right or wrong. Here are some arguments people
use to support moral relativism:
• Moral relativism reflects toleration and open-mindedness. Since there is
no single true morality, we should tolerate and respect other people's moral
opinions even if they are very different from ours.
• Moral relativism is confirmed by the fact that there is a wide diversity of
moral beliefs across culture and time.
• When people disagree about objective facts we can use scientific experiments
and observations to resolve the disagreement. But there is no scientific
method for dealing with moral disagreement, and this must be because
morality is relative and not objective.
Many people find these arguments attractive, but they are actually controversial
and problematic. To begin with, it is a big mistake to think that moral relativism
supports toleration and respect. If moral relativism were really true, whether
we should respect other people would also be a relative matter. Relative to some
perspectives, maybe we should despise or even kill people who disagree with us.
If it is objectively true that we should respect other moral perspectives, this would
be an objective moral truth, in which case moral relativism is wrong!
Some moral relativists might say they are only affirming toleration and respect
from their own perspective. But the problem is that from other perspectives, intolerance
might be desirable or even mandatory, and relativism does not provide
a way to engage the other party in a rational discussion. For example, someone
might think abortion is wrong relative to his moral theory, and that all violent
means are justified to prevent women from having abortions, including the killing
of doctors and nurses who participate in the operation. 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.
It is therefore a big mistake to think that moral relativism supports any kind of
liberal moral outlook. This does not show that moral relativism is wrong. But it
implies that under relativism, any nonliberal or absurd position is just as valid as
any other.
As for diversity in moral opinion, it is true that people in the past have held
very different views from ours today. Furthermore, in today's pluralistic societies,
people often disagree vehemently about morality. But note that first of all, people
often take themselves to be disagreeing about what the truth is about moral
matters. If morality is just a matter of opinion, there is no need for strong disagreement.
More important, the existence of widespread disagreement does not
entail the lack of objectivity. People in the past disagreed about whether the Earth