GUIDELINES – Moral relativism

I have given extended comments on the examiner’s comments on the January 20111 abortion and relativism question (G572, Q3). As they stand, the examiner’s comments lead us into a potential confusion which I’ve tried to explain below. It’s important that teacher’s teach relativism clearly (it’s an ambiguous concept – see my article on this site “The Puzzle of Relativism”),) and that students handle the term carefully (over-generalised comments like some of those in the examiner’s report simply add to the muddle and cause you to contradict yourself!). Also notice – you must practise writing analytical answers, and if you can take an essay example such as the one posted here on the site, and discuss and understand and then show you can write like this – well you are then on the way to an A grade.

Teachers – how do you know that the student understands what analytical writing involves? They need to prove it to you. My comments below are in red, prefaced PB – and please add your own below in the Disqus box! They give a clue as to the sorts of ways you can comment on a student essay.

3 (a) Explain how a moral relativist might approach the issues raised by abortion. [25] G572 Jan 2011

Candidates might explain what is meant by moral relativism – they may give particular examples of ethical theories which might be followed by a cognitivist moral relativist, such as Utilitarianism or Situation Ethics, or by a non cognitivist moral relativist such as emotivism or moral egoist. PB – this comment begs the question, how do you explain moral relativism clearly? I suggest in my article on this site that you differentiate between three meanings which are all used by philosophers, which yield slightly different implications. For example, if you cite Situation Ethics as an example of a relativist theory, it is only relativistic in one of the three meanings – consequentialism or ‘goodness is made relative to consequences”. In my article I suggest three meanings – relativism means ‘values are particular to a culture’ as in ‘cultural relativism’, and relativism can mean consequentialist as ‘goodness is relative to consequences’, and relativism can mean subjective as ‘values are up to me and have no objective basis’. Of course, this illustrates the subtlety of the question – but notice that the examiner introduces cognitivism v non-cognitivism which is an A2 meta-ethical distinction which you won’t have met at AS level. This goes to the heart of the subjective/objective split as utilitarians (U) and Situation Ethicists (SE) are NOT relativist in this sense as they both hold to one absolute, unchanging, non-negotiable definition of goodness, namely, the greatest happiness principle for utilitarians and the value of agape love for Situation Ethicist. This is an objective measure of goodness, hence not relativistic.

They may say that a moral relativist has no absolute principles that apply to each situation, and so would not consider human life to have absolute value. PB – note the contradiction here as the examiner has cited SE and U as examples of relativism and now said something that is plainly contradicting the main argument about these two theories – that there is one absolute principle that applies to every situation. You can see how easy it is to get muddled in your thinking about relativism!

They may discuss the fact that the issue of personhood is of little importance to a moral relativist, but for others being a human person is a general value. PB – again, a curious statement. The issue of personhood may or may not be of importance to a relativist. For example, a utilitarian (assuming we accept the consequentialist menaing of the term ‘relativism’) could in theory say a foetus is a person and hence needs to be added to the moral calculus of pleasure and pain – this i because the status of the foetus is an independent belief, that is, independent of a utilitarian calculation. Of course, the calculation changes if you give personhood status to the foetus as you have to count the foetus into the calculation, whereas an appendage to the mother has no moral status.

Candidates may say that some moral relativists would look at each individual situation, consider those involved and the consequences of an abortion. PB  – or more precisely, relativists taken as consequentialists as in U and SE.

Some might suggest that moral relativists will be swayed by the traditions and culture in which they live.

(b) ‘A relativist approach to the issues raised by abortion leads to wrong moral choices.’ Discuss.
[10]

Candidates may argue that a moral relativist approach to abortion means that there are no clear guidelines so knowing that a right choice has been made is difficult. PB – utilitarians and Situation ethicists have very clear guidelines so again, this contradicts what has been implied by citing them as relativistic theories. So which example of a relativist are we talking about here? It s an error to say that ‘a relativist believe that anything goes’ so you must avoid saying this at all costs. To be a relativist in the Utilitarian sense means you definitely have a view of objective goodness and badness – in the meta-ethical sense you are a cognitivist who believe in objective truth.

They may say that a moral relativist may consider all the consequences or the effects on those involved. PB – this is if we have made a clear distinction between the three meanings of relativism and are pursuing a clear line of argument that holds that Situation Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics (forms of consequentialism) are also relativistic in one of our three meanings of the word.

On the other hand they may argue that a relativist approach to abortion allows for individual needs and situations to be considered such as genetic abnormalities in the foetus, the financial situation, the mental and physical health of the mother etc. PB – again, true if (and only if) SE and U are argued to be forms of relativism.

Candidates may contrast a moral relativist approach with an absolutist one that gives clearer moral guidelines. PB – typically vague comment which is an assertion that needs careful justification!

Examiners’ Report Jan 2011 G572 Q3

3 (a) Many candidates were not successful in this question as they failed to address the question – they did not consider the issues raised by abortion but instead simply focused on abortion in general with many unlikely scenarios. The concept of personhood was not mentioned by many candidates. PB – I do think the issue of personhood is key to this question as it changes the way U and SE would make the calculation of consequences. I repeat – you can definitely be a utilitarian who opposes abortion if you count foetuses ‘in’ as persons! And what about the mental anguish some mothers face for years after an abortion?

Some candidates discussed theories which are relative in their application but failed to apply them to the issues surrounding abortion. PB – you must always use an example to create a proper analysis.

Good responses showed that relativism is an artificial construct which was added later to the theories, and one candidate wrote an excellent response showing that Natural Law is both relativist and absolute, but unfortunately, only applied this to abortion in general. PB – an excellent argument which you could explore with your teacher. Secondary precepts as explained by Aquinas are ‘proximate conclusions’ ie liable to change with our rational understanding eg of what it is to be human, or the circumstances of our culture.

Some excellent responses centred their arguments on cultural relativism, pointing out that a relativist could not criticise different approaches to the issues surrounding abortion followed by different countries such as Ireland and China. PB – that depends on whether you argue that U and SE are forms of relativism! See my comments above.

3 (b) Good answers showed how relativist approaches can lead to both good and bad choices, but many also recognising that for a relativist there are no wrong moral choices. PB – if a Utiltarian is a relativist then this is nonsense! Clearly a Utilitarian believes there is such a thing as a wrong moral choice. What is meant by ‘good and bad choices’ here?

Some candidates mistook choices for outcomes and others simply discussed whether abortion should be allowed. PB – if you are a teacher reading this – get your scripts photocopied even if your budget is tight! These sorts of general comments only make sense when you can see a script and then get students to practise rewriting the scripts as a class exercise. They can discuss whether the question is actually being answered or whether the exam candidate has waffled off into irrelevance (and a C grade maximum!).

Good answers contrasted the choices made by followers of different ethical theories, which could be considered either relativist or absolute in their approach to making moral choices about abortion, and how they might judge each others’ choices.

Other responses detailed the relative and absolute nature of theories such as Natural Law and applied these ideas. PB – yes handled properly Natural Law gives clues to an A* answer with careful and subtle analysis using original quotes from Aquinas, maybe contrasted with the Roman Catholic encyclical Veritatis Splendor (see Natural Law section of this site).