An Approach to Relativism by Thomas Carson, translated by Kaveh Behbahani

An Approach to Relativism

Thomas Carson

Translator: Kaveh Behbahani

The topic of moral relativism is a very troublesome one for those who teach moral philosophy. Many students who attend classes have been thoroughly indoctrinated that "morality is relative," and therefore, in their view, the search for answers to moral questions or the attempt to organize rational discussion about moral questions is a futile and vain endeavor. We are faced with a strange situation; many students who come to moral philosophy classes, without explicitly stating this belief, are firmly convinced that the efforts of us professors of moral philosophy (and the writers whose works we read) to rationally evaluate, critique, and justify moral beliefs are useless. Raising the issue of moral relativism is a necessary task in some moral philosophy courses. Unfortunately, most classic historical texts used for teaching in class contain no discussion of relativism. (Texts such as Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill and Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant). Most books and articles written in the contemporary era about moral relativism (including articles reprinted in introductory anthologies) are overly difficult and technical for most undergraduate students. Hence, professors who wish for students to study relativism often have no choice but to use one of the introductory textbooks of moral philosophy that includes a chapter or chapters on relativism. Of course, some of these books are splendid, but other options are also needed. In our profession, there is a lack of articles written at the same level and for the same audience. I have written this article in pursuit of such a goal. The writing that follows is a detailed class handout on moral relativism that I wrote, and which I and others have used successfully in our classes.

Two Brief Preliminary Notes Regarding This Handout:

1- I have drawn distinctions between very different versions of relativism. This is important because when people say "morality is relative," they mean various things. Most of us, upon examination, will find that we have accepted a specific version of relativism and not all of its versions. I will argue that some versions of relativism are clearly true and some are clearly false. In other words, the answer to the question "Is moral relativism true?" is not a simple "yes" or "no." We must clarify which version of relativism we are talking about.

2- I will discuss the historical example of the Holocaust at length and will argue that the statement that what the Nazis did was wrong is objectively true or correct. The example of the Holocaust refutes extreme versions of relativism as well as moral skepticism. In other words, the Holocaust is a counterexample to the view that holds that none of our moral judgments are objectively true, and also to the view that holds that none of our moral judgments can be justified with the aid of reason. The best way to defend the opinion that the rational justification of moral judgments is possible is to appeal to an example. An example in which specific moral judgments are justified using reason.

.

---

.

Full text of the article with Kaveh Behbahani's translation

Full text of the article in the original language

.

---

.