Relativism, Divine Command Theory, and Particularism A closer look at some prominent views of ethical theory.

Relativism Relativism claims that morality is determined relative to a culture, society, or social group. There are commonly two sources for this claim: 1.There is doubt that there are any absolute, universal, or objective moral truths. So, all moral claims must be relative. 2.Because we typically acquire moral beliefs from parents, communities, or social groups, then these things must determine our sense of morality.

Fact / Value Distinction Philosophers have supported this view of ethics by distinguishing facts from values. Facts can either obtain or not obtain. So claims about facts can be either true or false. Values --- it is claimed --- cannot be either true or false. They do not say anything about the way the world is; they say something about the way it ought to be or the way we would prefer it to be. Hume claimed that there is no direct inference from what is the case to what ought to be the case; one cannot derive an ought from an is.

What does this say about morality? Every truth we learn about the world must take the form of an is-statement. But if there is no clear way to derive ought-statements from is- statements, then how can we get from truths about the world to truths about morality? Emotivism suggests that ought-statements express moral sentiments or future prescriptions. – When I say “murder is wrong”, I am expressing my displeasure at the idea of murder. – I may mean by “murder is wrong” that I would like people not to commit murder.

Response to #1 There is good reason to be skeptical about the existence of objective, universal moral truths. After all, people have deep differences when it comes to morality; it is not likely that everyone will agree to any moral claim. But is this any reason to claim that moral truths are relative? – We may not know what Julius Ceasar ate for breakfast on a given Thursday morning in July, 88 BCE. – But that doesn’t mean that Julius Ceasar didn’t eat anything on that day.

Response to #2 This line of argument commits the “genetic fallacy”: this is a faulty form of reasoning that claims that the meaning of a concept, object, or idea is determined by its origins. Example: You don’t wear a wedding ring do you? Don’t you know that wedding rings came from the custom of binding the ankles of a married woman? In other words: just because our ideas about morality came from our parents or culture, doesn’t mean that morality is determined by our parents and culture.

Additional problems Moral equivalence: moral relativists cannot make distinctions between different cultural or personal views on morality. No room for cultural criticism or cultural change: how can we criticize our own culture or change cultural values if there is not some other moral standard to appeal to? Conflict, disagreements, and dilemmas: moral relativism doesn’t adequately explain genuine moral disagreements. People’s moral beliefs are usually much stronger than merely cultural attitudes and this is reflected in moral disagreements. If relativism is right, then there shouldn’t be any real moral disagreements.

Divine Command Theory Divine Command theories claim that whatever God commands is what is morally good. Some obvious issues: – What if there is no God? – Even if there is a God, how do I know what God commands? – Which God were we talking about?

Natural Law Theory A closely related theory that expands on divine command theory. Natural law theory holds: 1.Moral law is one part of God’s design for creation, i.e., morality is “built in” to the creation of the universe. 2.Individuals are deemed moral or immoral insofar as they follow God’s moral law, i.e., God’s commands are specifically designed for human beings to follow. This is a teleological theory because following the moral law is ultimately good. Rights and duties have no independent force; they are good as part of the design of God’s creation.

The Euthyphro Problem All of these theories confront a more basic objection, known as the “Euthyphro Problem.” In each case, the theory asks us to imagine that someone or something (God or my culture) determines what is morally good. But, as Socrates asked Euthyphro, is something morally good because God says it is, or does God say it’s good because it’s good?

To put it another way 1.Either God or culture has reasons to support its idea of the good or it doesn’t. 2.If God or culture lacks reasons to support its idea of the good, then the good is completely arbitrary. 3.If God or culture has reasons to support its idea of the good, then these reason are the justification for the idea of the good, not God or culture. 4.Therefore, either relativism and Divine Command Theory are arbitrary or they are based on independent reasons.

Responses: The moral relativist could respond: I dispute the very idea that there are independent grounds for moral claims. Although the conclusion that moral claims are arbitrary may be surprising, that doesn’t make it wrong. The divine command theorist could respond: God’s will determines morality. Even though this makes morality arbitrary, that is not a defect. After all, God’s will is perfect and it is directed by God’s omniscience. So, God’s commands, though arbitrary, are also perfectly justified.

Moral Particularism One moral theory denies that there are any moral principles (or that moral principles contribute anything to ethical decision-making), but still affirms that there are objective moral goods. Particularism holds that reasons for acting morally in one situation are no reason at all for acting morally in another. Thus, it is not possible to generalize about moral principles. But moral agents are still able to decide on the morally best alternative by appealing to particular features that pertain this action now.