It’s all relative! Whose opinion counts anyway? (Richard van de Lagemaat, Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge University Press)

To what extent do you think the following individuals are morally inconsistent? An anti-abortionist who supports the death penalty. A vegetarian who buys leather shoes. A politician who advocates family values and has an extra-marital affair. Someone who thinks stealing is wrong but makes illegal copies of computer software.

What facts, if any, are relevant in assessing the following value-judgements? Child labour should be outlawed. Cannabis should be legalised. Genetically modified food should be banned. Rich countries should give more financial aid to poor countries.

Model for moral reasoning: Moral principle --- fact --- value-judgement Cheating is wrong, Tom cheats, therefore Tom is wrong What if Tom thinks cheating is ok? In fact it’s a good idea?

Moral relativism Our values are determined by the society we grow up in and there are no universal values. Moral values are simply customs or conventions that vary from culture to culture. Some peoples are monogamous, others polygamous, some do not eat pork, others do not eat beef, some bury their dead while others burn them.

In favour of moral relativism: The diversity argument The lack of foundations argument

The diversity argument: Some cultures allow or allowed: Keeping slaves Female circumcision Killing adulterers Burning widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres Cannabalism

Is there a difference between moral values and customs or conventions? Which of the following would you say is wrong and which just a matter of convention:

a.You should not burn your country’s flag. b.A man should not go to work wearing a dress. c.You should not persecute minority groups. d.A woman should not have more than one husband. e.You should not torture the innocent. f.You should not use dead people for dog meat. g.You should not execute murderers. h.You should not execute adulterers. i.You should not eat meat.

The lack of foundations argument Moral values are ungrounded, there is no independent “moral reality” to test them against. Can’t use perception or reason to argue about values.

Some people in the world are starving. I have more food than I need. Therefore, I ought to give some of my food to the starving. Some people in the world are starving. I have more food than I need. Therefore, lucky old me!

Tolerance? I have my values and you have yours, so let’s agree that we are both right. Therefore no-one should impose their views on someone else. What about the “Thugs”?

History Do morals change with the centuries? It used to be considered acceptable to own slaves. Was it therefore wrong to own slaves at that time, even though it was legal and most people who could afford to, owned slaves?

Is it all relative, then? Who decides?