The Language and Nature of Morality – CUET PG Philosophy – Notes

Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Unlike normative ethics, which asks “What actions are right and wrong?”, and applied ethics, which addresses specific moral issues, metaethics asks more fundamental questions. It delves into the nature of morality itself. Key questions in metaethics include: What is the meaning of moral terms like ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, and ‘wrong”? Do moral truths exist? If so, are they objective or subjective? How do we acquire moral knowledge? The theories discussed here-Relativism, Non-naturalism, Emotivism, and Universal Prescriptivism-offer different answers to these foundational questions.

Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a particular standpoint (for a particular person or a culture) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It stands in opposition to moral absolutism or moral objectivism, which holds that there are universal moral truths that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Relativism suggests that there is no objective, universal moral law or standard; morality is created by, and dependent on, human beings.

Types of Moral Relativism

• Subjective Relativism (Individual Relativism): This is the view that what is morally right or wrong is relative to the individual. According to subjectivism, when a person says “X is wrong,” they are merely stating their personal disapproval of X. On this view, an action is morally right for a person if and only if that person believes it to be right. There is no external or objective basis for judging one person’s morality as better than another’s. Morality becomes a matter of personal taste or opinion.
• Cultural Relativism (Conventionalism): This is the more common form of relativism. It holds that moral rightness and wrongness are determined by the norms and standards of a particular culture or society. An act is morally right if it is approved by the prevailing code of that society, and wrong if it is forbidden. This view often stems from the observation of vast differences in moral practices across cultures (e.g., practices concerning marriage, burial, or diet).

Arguments and Criticisms

The primary argument for cultural relativism is the Argument from Disagreement. It observes that different cultures have different moral codes and concludes that there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. This view is often seen as promoting tolerance and discouraging cultural imperialism.

However, Moral Relativism faces several significant criticisms:

1. The Reformer’s Dilemma: If morality is simply what a culture dictates, then social reformers (like Martin Luther King Jr., or early suffragettes) are, by definition, always morally wrong. They are challenging the established moral code of their society. Yet, we often consider these figures to be moral heroes. Relativism cannot account for moral progress, as any change from the established norm would be a move toward immorality.
2. Impossibility of Cross-Cultural Criticism: Cultural relativism implies that we cannot legitimately criticize the practices of other cultures. For example, a relativist could not say that the practices of Nazi Germany or a society practicing genocide were objectively immoral. They were simply following their own cultural code. This seems deeply counterintuitive to most people. 
3. The Problem of Defining “Culture”: In a diverse and interconnected world, what constitutes a “culture” or “society”? A person can belong to multiple subcultures (national, religious, professional, familial). If these subcultures have conflicting moral codes, which one determines what is right for that person? Relativism provides no clear answer.
4. Collapse into Subjectivism: If a culture’s moral code is determined by the majority view, what about minority views? If a person’s culture cannot be clearly defined, they may be forced to choose their own moral code, which essentially collapses cultural relativism into subjective relativism.

Observation of diverse cultural practices → Assumption that there is no universal moral truth → Conclusion that morality is relative to a specific culture → Problems arise (e.g., Reformer’s Dilemma, no basis for crosscultural critique)