The Arguments for

      Relativism from Self-Esteem

and Cultural Relativity
PHIL 213: Communicating Moral Issues

Passages in this presentation are taken from Kreeft’s text.

 1. Good morality has good consequences; bad
morality has bad consequences.
(1) The 2. Feelings of unhappiness and guilt are bad
Relativist’s consequences, while feelings of happiness
and self-esteem are good consequences.
Argument 3. Moral absolutism produces the bad feelings
of guilt and unhappiness, while moral
from Self- relativism produces the good feelings of self-
Esteem esteem and happiness.
4. Therefore, moral absolutism is bad, and
moral relativism is good.
A. The Objection from Self-Esteem
• Premise 3 is false. Moral absolutism actually maximizes happiness.
There is an objective moral law and obeying it makes one happy,
while disobeying the law results in guilt and a bad conscience. In
short, the temporary displeasure of guilt results in the long-term
happiness.
• Now, this is the crux of this argument. If there is a moral law, then it
produces maximal happiness, while if there is not one, then guilt and
the law are useless and should be ignored. Nevertheless, the
argument assumes that the relativist’s thesis is true without proving
it.
B. The Objection from Counterintuitive
Consequences
• The argument from self-esteem assumes that a person with high self-
esteem is better than a person with guilt.
• This counterintuitively suggests that a rapist, child molester, terrorist,
or a dictator with high self-esteem are better than one with guilt.
• This is absurd. Thus, Kreeft tells us the argument is faulty.
(2) The Relativist’s Argument From
Cultural
Relativity
1. Values differ from on culture to another [Cultural Relativism].
2. Rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by the society. [Moral
Relativism]

Evidence for P1:

*Eskimo’s and Holland’s views on Euthanasia versus the traditional Christian
view.
*Sex outside of marriage and marijuana use was once taboo. Now, it is not.
*Descartes tell us in the Discourse that there is no idea so strange that some
philosopher hasn’t believed it. This seems to go for societies as well.
A. The Naturalistic Fallacy
1. Factual claim. X is the case.
2. Normative claim. X ought to be the case.

“Ought” statements do not follow from “is” statements. This is called

the naturalistic fallacy.
Suppose everyone cheats on their spouse. This does not mean that you
ought to cheat.
The Fix: The Normative Premise
• We need a normative premise. Take the following examples

The Argument Fix

1. A culture’s values differ from on culture to another [Cultural
Relativism].
2. Moral rightness and wrongness is determined by the society [Moral
Relativism].
3. Therefore, Moral rightness and wrongness is determined by the
society. [Moral Relativism]
The Circularity Objection

• The Fix Argument obviously assumes what it aims to prove in the

conclusion. Thus, the new argument commits the circularity fallacy.
The Equivocation Objection
1. A culture’s opinions on values differ from on culture to another.
2. Therefore, rightness and wrongness of an act [actual values] is
determined by the society. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE VALUES.

The argument equivocates concerning two senses of value. In 1., we are

told value opinions differ, but, in the conclusion, we are told that actual
values are determined by the society. The conclusion does not follow from
the premises. The premise needs to make claims about values.
The Mathematics Objection
• Mathematics: Imagine a young one thinks that 2 and 2 is 6. Further,
suppose an odd society believes this as well. Does 2 and 2 equal 6?
One’s belief as no bearing on the veracity of the conclusion.
• Astronomy: Suppose some strange society believes the earth is flat.
Again, the belief has no bearing on the way things are.
The Near Universal Agreement Argument
• The argument from Cultural relativity is based on what seems to be a strong
fact in Premise 1. Morals differ. But, the absolutist holds that this claim is not
strong.
• Disagreements about morals are minor and concern the application of them.
E.g. capital punishment and abortion.
• No society has outright adopted the contrary to traditional values:  justice,
honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control. No society trains an army to
be cowardly.
• Similarly, in the abortion debate, pro-choice advocates respect life, though they
do not think the fetus is a person with rights. Similar, the pro-life advocates
respect autonomy, but they think the fetus also has a right ot bodily autonomy.