Morality that's relative to circumstances is not moral relativism. Hi,
I'm Tim Barnett, and today we're applying some red pen logic to an Instagram post
from The Evolved Primate. Class is in session.
This is Red Pen Logic with Mr. B
where we help you assess bad thinking by using good thinking. Plus, we try to have
some fun in the process. In today's example, The Evolved Primate offers an
argument against objective morality and for subjective morality. The post reads,
"Morals are objective? I disagree. For every immoral action there exists a
scenario where that action becomes moral. A killer asks you where your family is.
Is it immoral to lie to save them? Morals are subjective." Notice the logic: If
morality is dependent on the situation, then morality must be subjective. Alright,
it's time to red pen this primate. The Evolved Primate seems a bit puzzled on what
it means for morality to be subjective, so let's define some terms. Pay very close
attention here because lots of little primates get confused on this. Subjective
morality, also called relativism, is the view that morality is based on what some
particular person believes. On this view, what is right and what is wrong depend completely
on the individual, or the subject. That's why they call it subjectivism. On
relativism, premarital sex may be wrong for me, but the exact same behavior might
be right for someone else. Now, here's the payoff. Listen closely, you little
primates. In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on the
individual subject. But in objective morality, by contrast, right and wrong do
not depend on the individual subject but on the individual situation. The Evolved
Primate has actually confused morality that's relative to situations—
objectivism—with morality that is relative to subjects—relativism. Uh-oh. When Mr. Primate
says that morality is always relative to situations, he's right, but that's moral
objectivism, not moral relativism. The Evolved Primate has confused the
definition of relativism with the definition of objectivism. Whoopsie. The
Evolved Primate's example actually demonstrates his mistake. He offers a
moral dilemma in the form of a question. A killer asks you where your family is.
Is it immoral to lie to save them? The dilemma is, if you tell the truth,
your family will be killed. Bad. But if you protect your family, you'll have to
lie. Also bad. But wait. If morals are subjective, as Mr. Primate says, then
there is no dilemma. The answer to the question is simple. If
you think it's immoral to lie, then it is. For you. If you think it's more moral to
protect your family, then it is. For you. There is no dilemma on relativism
because whatever you choose is right for you. For the moral relativist, both
options are equally legitimate because there is no objective right or wrong
decision. For the moral objectivist, though, there is a right response and a
wrong response in this particular situation. Yes, it's wrong to lie to
protect a thief from the police. But it's right to lie to protect your family from
a killer, and this is true for anyone facing the same situation. In
subjectivism, the subject gets to decide what's right and wrong, and he's always
right, by definition. In objectivism, it's the objective circumstances that
determine what's right and wrong. See the difference? The Evolved Primate has
mistaken objective morality for subjective morality. Is it always wrong
to lie? Well, it depends not on the subject—
that's relativism—but on the objective situation—that's objectivism. So, what
have we learned? First, objective morality always depends on the situation or
circumstances. Relativism is when right and wrong depend on, or are relative to, the
person. Second, moral dilemmas based on circumstances, like the example given by
Mr. Primate, always demonstrate objectivism, not
subjectivism. Third, if we ought to save our family from a killer, then
morality is objective, not subjective. The Evolved Primate thinks his ethical
dilemma illustrates subjective morality. Ironically, it illustrates just the
opposite. Class dismissed.