Relative in Theory, Not in Practice

Moral relativism, as commonly argued, cannot justify anything.

For anything to be "relative," it must be relative TO something:
1) to something of its own type and
2) to something besides itself.
Both conditions must be met.

Relativity is a condition of items in a set in which there are at least two items of the same class. Their "relativity" is demonstrated by comparison of properties between members of the class (which shows their relation).

Items cannot be called relative to each other until they are qualified as belonging to some class in common, and afterwards they are not relative until compared within it.

(For instance, in Einstein's physics there are objects with physical characteristics in space and time, such as particles and photons. Physical objects in motion, when compared, move relative to each other; and every object's speed can be measured relative to the speed of light.)

Relativity consists in comparison.

No ethics (or anything else) can be called relative, then, without showing "relative to what." Ethics is relative only when one ethics is compared to another. Some philosophers claim "my" ethics can be compared to "your" ethics, thus they are relative. Since that is plausible, let's grant that and see what follows from the comparison:

My moral position is A (and not B).
Your moral position is B (and not A).
Comparison: both are moral claims and they differ.
They are relative:
same class (moral claims), and
comparable (A can be compared to B).

"My ethics is relative to yours" is true. So far, so good.

Now, on the basis of this proven relativity, choose one position: A or B. Choose the better-justified moral position, based on any criterion available from the information provided.

There are no criteria available to justify a choice, except difference (which is a condition of membership in the set).

The comparison cannot justify anything. The comparative operation contains no justification proposition at all.

Relative analysis does not reveal how a moral action is judged; it only says one moral position can be compared to another. In a "relative" comparison, there is no decision model. In fact, relativity does not entail even that a decision must be made.

Yet a moral question is one that requires a decision. Justification is requested. Conflicts among interests must be resolved. Valuations must be identified and chosen, then applied. "Relativism" is not equipped to do these things.

"Relativism" is equipped only to compare alternatives, not to choose among them.

Some philosophers (Rorty is an example) want to convince us that, absent such a decision model (which they readily grant is absent) moral decisions are, in principle, impossible. They hold that no ethics can outrank another and any decision is valid, expressly because there is no decision model in relative theory.

That is a fallacy.

The absence of a decision model (or justification proposition) within relative ethics does not entail that no decision models are possible. It only entails that relative ethics itself, alone, cannot decide moral questions. It also entails that, to make moral decisions or justifications, some other theory must provide the decision model.

Nothing about ethical relativism entails that there cannot be any other moral theories. Therefore valid decision models are not ruled out and might exist. Since no decision model is intrinsic to the theory, some such model must be imported from elsewhere to complete a decision. There are many candidates: choose one. Rorty can't.

No judgment is possible within relative ethics, but it is still possible in some ethics.

Relativism needs another moral premise — specifically a justification premise — for decisions, therefore as a justification theory or principle, it is incomplete. When "relativity" is invoked directly to justify (or de-justify) anything, the argument is fallacious — including the oft-sloganeered "judge not."

Moral relativism is insufficient. It can do no moral work.

It is a meta-ethical observation, not a moral theory.

Ethics is relative in theory, not in practice.

~~~~~~

To understand this in concrete terms, imagine the scientists who faced "moral outrage" after cloning a sheep, producing the infamous "Dolly." Imagine them standing before the world declaring that it was ethical to create Dolly "because ethics is relative."

That sounds incoherent because it is: relative ethics justifies absolutely nothing.

It is extremely interesting to me that, although Rorty and others (including the scientists themselves) might prefer that argument, the scientists did not make that argument.*

But they'd love for us to believe ethics is relative. Vox pop: judge not. Make room for Dolly.

*What they did say was: it's only research [read: science is amoral], and the ethics committee approved it.