M0RAL Relativism
 

According to Moral Relativism, the truth or falsity of moral beliefs is relative either to an individual or a society. There are two versions of Moral Relativism: Subjectivism and Conventionalism, Before going into either version, however, we need to understand a distinction between moral judgments, on the one hand, and moral principles, on the other. A moral judgment is the evaluation of an individual action, state of affairs, or event. A moral principle is a generalization about a kind of action, state of affairs, or event. For example, suppose Brannigan robs a bank. The claim "It was wrong of Brannigan to rob the bank" is a moral judgment, because it's the evaluation of a concrete, individual action: Brannigan's robbing of the bank. On the other hand, "Robbing banks is wrong" and "People shouldn't rob banks" are moral principles, generalizations about a kind of action: robbing banks.
 

Moral judgments are made on the basis of moral principles. To make a moral judgment is to apply a moral principle to a particular situation. The moral judgment that it was wrong of Brannigan to rob the bank is an application of the moral principle that robbing banks is wrong. Similarly, suppose Rudy deliberately insults Charles. The moral judgment that it was wrong of Rudy to insult Charles is an application of the moral principle that deliberately insulting people is wrong.

With the distinction between moral judgments and moral principles in mind, we can now turn to the first version of Moral Relativism-Moral Subjectivism.

Subjectivism
 

According to Moral Subjectivism, each individual has a moral code, a set of standards, rules, and principles of right and wrong. Unlike Nihilism, according to which no moral judgments are true (or false), Subjectivism claims that moral judgments are either true or false. An individual's moral judgment is true if it conforms to his or her moral code (or principles) and false if it doesn't. Thus, if Tomasi claims it was wrong of Phil to cheat on his chemistry exam, his judgment is true provided he (Tomasi) accepts the moral principle "It's wrong to cheat."

Subjectivism is a version of Relativism because it views the truth and falsity of moral judgments as relative to the moral code of an individual. Suppose Jack and Jill have sex without being married. Denise claims it's wrong for them to have sex and Sharon claims it's not wrong, because Denise accepts the moral principle that premarital sex is wrong, but Sharon doesn't. According to Subjectivism, Denise's moral judgment that it's wrong for Jack and Jill to have sex is true, and Sharon's moral judgment that it isn't wrong is true. Both are true because each judgment is in conformity with the principles of the person making it.

However, what of the moral principles themselves? According to Subjectivism, so long as a person accepts a moral principle, it's true for that person. Thus, since Denise accepts the principle that premarital sex is wrong, the principle is true for her; since Sharon accepts the principle that premarital sex isn't wrong, that principle is true for her, and Denise's principle is false for her. Who's really correct about the rightness or wrongness of premarital sex? Neither, according to Subjectivism. There are no valid moral principles beyond an individual's own to determine who's "really" right. Denise's moral code is no more correct or incorrect, reasonable or unreasonable, than Sharon's.

Moral Subjectivism

Each individual judges moral matters from the perspective of his or her own moral code, and no one's moral code is any truer, more correct, or more reasonable than is anyone else's.

Moral Subjectivism may seem plausible when we focus on some issues. Take the issue ofwhether the dead should be buried or should be cremated. There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer here. Either alternative seems equally acceptable. But is it plausible with all moral issues?

Imagine you have a neighbor who sets live cats afire for amusement. He likes to hear their howls of agony and gets pleasure from causing pain to living creatures. You believe it's wrong to set live cats afire, but he believes it isn't wrong. Burning cats is contrary to your moral code, but not his. One day, your neighbor finds a stray cat and sets it afire. You say that what he did is wrong, and he says that what he did isn't wrong. According to Subjectivism, both of your judgments are true because they conform to the moral principles of the person making the judgment. Whose principles are correct? They're both correct so long as you both continue to accept them. There are no valid moral principles according to which setting live cats afire is wrong; there are only the moral principles that individuals accept. Your neighbor's moral principles, which permit setting live cats afire, are no better or worse, reasonable or unreasonable, than your moral principles, which forbid setting live cats afire. According to a Moral Subjectivist, your neighbor isn't doing anything objectively wrong in setting live cats afire to amuse himself; he's conforming to his moral code, and that's all that can be asked of him.

Suppose it's not cats but people your neighbor gets pleasure from setting afire. He sets homeless people afire in the dead of night. According to his moral code, it's not wrong to set people afire, but according to your code, it is wrong. Who's correct? According to Subjectivism, setting people afire for amusement may be wrong according to your moral code, but it's not according to his; your moral code is no more true, correct, or reasonable than his moral code. He's not doing anything objectively wrong in setting people afire, because there isn't anything that's objectively wrong. Moral principles are purely subjective and arbitrary; one personts are as good as another's. One may accept or reject any moral principle one pleases, and one is immune from any rational criticism on the matter.

Not too long ago, a grisly story hit the headlines. A young woman was jogging in Central Park in Manhattan when a bunch of youths went "wilding," rampaging through the park. When they spotted the young woman jogging, according to the police, they ran her down, beat her unconscious, and gang-raped her, leaving her to die in a pool of blood. When her accused assailants were arrested the next morning, they showed no remorse. When asked why they had done it, one of the boys reportedly said they had been bored and it had been fun. According to Moral Subjectivism, the attackers did nothing wrong because they were just following their own moral code. They had nothing to be remorseful about merely because they weren't following your and my moral code.
 

Many people find Subjectivism implausible. It entails that principles condemning rape, child molestation, eating babies, and inflicting intense pain on people for amusement are no better or worse, more or less reasonable, than principles condemning such behavior. Surely Subjectivism, like Nihilism, should be a last resort rather than a first resort, should be accepted only if it has been proved true and other theories proved false. Before accepting Subjectivism, then, we need to carefully and critically examine what reasons there are for thinking it's true.

Moral Conventionalism

 According to Subjectivism, moral judgments are either true or false relative to the judger's moral principles, but there are no moral principles higher than those of an individual. An individual's moral principles are immune from rational criticism and are the final court of appeal on moral questions. Moral Conventionalism, on the other hand, views an individual's moral code as subordinate to society's moral code. According to Conventionalism, an individual's moral judgments are true only if they're in conformity with the moral standards of his or her society. Furthermore, an individual's moral principles are correct only if they're in conformity with the moral principles of his or her society. Subjectivism claims that there is no higher court of appeal in moral matters than an individual's own moral code, but Conventionalism claims that there is a higher court of appeal: society's moral code.

 Let's assume that Sharon and Denise from the previous example are members of the same society, and according to the moral code of their society, premarital sex is wrong. According to Conventionalism, Denise's judgment that it's wrong for Jack and Jill to have sex when they're not married is true, and Sharon's judgment that it isn't wrong is false, because Denise's judgment conforms to the moral principles of their society. Furthermore, Denise's moral principle "Premarital sex is wrong" is true, whereas Sharon's principle "Premarital sex isn't wrong" is false.

 What if Denise and Sharon are members of different societies? Suppose premarital sex is wrong according to the moral code of Denise's society but not Sharon's. in that case, both Denise and Sharotfs moral judgments about Jack and Jill's sex life are correct. Similarly, Denise's principle that premarital sex is wrong is correct, and Sharon's principle that it's not wrong is also correct, because both women accept the moral principles of their societies.

 Suppose we ask which society's moral principle is correct, whether premarital sex is really right or wrong. Conventionalists claim that both principles are correct, for there's no higher court of appeal than a society's own moral code. There's no such thing as premarital sex being "really" right or wrong. There are no valid moral principles by which one could judge the moral codes of different societies. The moral code of a society, whatever principles it includes or doesn't include, is immune from rational criticism and is the ultimate standard of right and wrong for members of that society.

 According to Kwakiutl society, killing people from another tribe if a relative had died was morally acceptable. If Conventionalism is true, the Kwakiutl chief did nothing wrong in killing nine innocent people, because his action conformed to the moral code of his society. Similarly, according to the moral code of ancient Rome, slavery was morally acceptable. Thus, if Julius Caesar believed that slavery was morally acceptable, his belief was true, because it agreed with the moral code of his society. On the other hand, if a Roman at the time of Julius Caesar believed that slavery was wrong, his belief was false, because it disagreed with the moral code of his society.

 According to Conventionalism, whatever one's culture believes to be right or good is right or good; whatever one's culture believes to be wrong or evil is wrong or evil (at least for members of that culture). If suttee (widow burning) is acceptable under the Hindu moral code, then it isn't wrong in Hindu society. One can't convict Hindus of moral error; one can't say that Hindu moral code is mistaken or incorrect. It may be contrary to your society's moral code, but yourmoral code is no more true, correct, or reasonable than is the Hindu code. Moral right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to a particular culture or society:

 CONVENTIONALISM

 1. Whatever a society's moral code says is right (wrong) is right (wrong) for that society

 2. No society's moral code is more true, correct, or reasonable than any other society's moral code. All moral codes are equally arbitrary.

Moral Objectivism

According to moral objectivism there are true moral principles.  That is to say, there are moral principles that are TRUE-PERIOD!  These principles are not just true-for and individual or for a society, in the way that the varieties of relativism are true-for.  According the moral objectivism, ther are moral principles that are true in just the same way that 'Paris is the capital of France' is true; true in just the way that "The earth has one natural satellite" is true.

According to the moral objectivist, there is a realm of non-moral facts and a realm of moral facts.  These facts are different in a sense (different realms) but the facts are the facts.  Just as anyone who happens to think that a true non-moral fact is mistaken, anyone who happens to think that a true moral principle is false is mistaken.

Moral objectivists can and do disagree over which moral principles ar true, but they agree over the issue of the status of those that are true.
 
 
 

Further elaboration.

A moral relativist (either a subjectivist or a conventionalist), and a moral objectivist can agree on moral principles.   For example, both a relativist and an objectivist can subscribe to the principle that it is wrong to kill innocent children.  What they disagree on is the scope of the moral principle.