Clarifying some differences between relativism and absolutism

Clarifying some differences between relativism and absolutism.

The dispute between the relativist (qua relativist) and the absolutist (qua absolutist) is not a dispute between what (in particular) is right and what (in particular) is wrong. That is to say, the dispute is not a disagreement over which moral principles are the right ones. The dispute is over the scope of (the 'correct') moral principles. To characterize the dispute in another way, it is a dispute over whether or not there are moral principles that apply to everyone, whether they acknowledge the legitimacy of the principles or not, whether they believe the principles or not.

To illustrate, suppose absolutist Adam believes the following moral principle:

MP I. It is always wrong to kill another human.

Suppose absolutist Charlie believes the following moral principle:

MP II. It is wrong to kill another human being with the following exceptions: to save one's own life or the life of another innocent person; to stop a rape; if the person killed has been convicted of whatever the state has decided is a capital crime; if the person is an intruder in one's own home; if the individual killed is a convicted child molester.

Adam and Charlie are, by hypothesis, absolutists. That is to say, they each believe that the moral principles that they hold are TRUE-Period!. They disagree over which moral principles are true-PERIOD!. As absolutists, they each think that those who disagree with them are just plain wrong. There may be an explanation for how they have come to be wrong, but they are wrong, nevertheless.

The fact that Charlie believes that killing other people is permissible sometimes does not make Charlie a relativist. Charlie just believes a moral principle to be true-period! that is different from (relevant) moral principle that Adam believes to be true-PERIOD! Charlie, if asked if he thinks it is wrong to kill other humans might say something such as "It depends on the circumstances!". But the fact that this is true about Charlie's belief doesn't make him a relativist.

Now then, let us turn to a brief discussion of relativism.

Don is a relativist. Don believes the following moral principle:

MP I. It is always wrong to kill another human being.

Eric is also a relativist. Eric believes the following moral principle:

Don and Adam both believe the same moral principle (MPI) governing killing other humans. Eric and Charlie believe the same moral principle (MPII) governing killing humans. The fact there are these respective similarities between the members of each pair doesn't, in itself, define them as either relativists or absolutists. What defines them as relativists, in the case of Don and Eric, is the fact that they don't necessarily think that those who do not share their moral principles are mistaken. Don, as a relativist, will believe that his moral principle, MPI, is true-for him, but not true-for Charlie. Don, as a relativist, will believe that his moral principle, MP I, is not true-for Eric either. Don is a relativist with respect to the moral permissibility of killing humans beings. So, Don will believe that there are no true-period moral principles about killing other humans. If Don is a thoroughgoing relativist, Don believes that there are no moral principles that are true-period. In other words, if asked something such as "But which of the two moral principles, MP I and MP II, is really the right one, or closer to the right one?" Don, will maintain that there isn't any 'really' right one. That is an absolutist view and it is a mistaken view about the nature of morality.

As absolutists, Adam and Charlie will believe that Don and Eric are wrong about the issue of relativism vs absolutism (more will be said about this, below). However, Adam and Don emrace the same moral principle about about killing other people and Charlie and Eric embrace the same principle about killing other people. The fact that one in each of these pairs is a relativist and the other in each of the pairs is an absolutist doesn't mean that differ on when they may kill people with moral impunity and when they may not.

The Dispute between the Absolutist and the Relativist.

Our examples here will be the following: Absolutist Charlie and reletivist Eric both believe the following moral principle:

So, both Charlie and Eric believe the same thing about killing another human being: It is always morally wrong to do so. However, Charlie, as an absolutist, believes that anyone who kills another person is doing something wrong. As an absolutist, Charlie believes that the moral principle governing killing another person (MPII) is true-period. So, if George kills another person, then George has done something that is wrong-- George has violated a true-period moral principle.

Eric, as a relativist, does not necessarily believe that a person who kills another person has done something that is wrong. This is so, even if the killing is inconsistent with moral principle (MPII) that Eric believes. The inconsistency is only apparent, as far as Eric in concerned. This is because, as far as Eric is concerned, moral principles are true-for rather than true-period. This means that, if George has killed another person, George has done something that is wrong only if moral principle MPII is true-for George. If the MPII is not true-for George, then George has not done anything wrong.

The dispute over absolutism v relativism between Charlie and Eric can be characterized in terms of the moral assessment of George. If George has killed another person, then as far as Charlie is concerned, George has done something that is wrong. As far as Eric is concerned, whether or not George has done something wrong only if MPII is true-for George. So, Charlie and Eric will have a disagreement here, a disagreement over whether or not George has done something wrong, even though both Charlie and Eric think that killing another person is always wrong, and they both know that George has killed a person. The dispute is over whether or not George is to be evaluated against the moral principle MPII. The dispute is over whether or not MPII applies to George.

According to Charlie, MPII does apply to George because it applies to everyone, this is the practical import of true-period.

According to Eric, MPII applies to George only if MPII is true-for George. The fact that MPII is true-for Eric does not mean that it is true-for George. Since Eric is a (complete) relativist, he does not believe that there are any true-period moral principles. So whether or not MPII is true-for George remains to be established.

Study Questions

1. Suppose you know that I believe that abortion is always impermissible. Do you now know if I am a relativist or an absolutist? If so, which am I? If not, why not?

2. Suppose you know that I believe that whether or not an abortion is impermissible depends on the circumstances. Do you now know if I am a relativist or an absolutist? If so, which am I? If not, why not?