An anthropologist observes that ancient Aztec culture approved of human sacrifice while contemporary American culture does not. She concludes: 'This shows morality is relative — what counts as right is determined by cultural consensus.' Which error has she committed?
AShe has committed the naturalistic fallacy by deriving a moral conclusion from a natural fact
BShe has fallaciously inferred normative relativism from descriptive relativism
CShe has confused individual subjectivism with cultural relativism
DNo error — cultural variation in moral beliefs is sufficient evidence for moral relativism
Descriptive relativism — that cultures hold different moral beliefs — is an empirical observation, not a philosophical argument. The inference from 'cultures disagree' to 'therefore neither view is objectively correct' is a non sequitur. Scientific beliefs also vary across cultures and history, yet we don't conclude there are no scientific facts. Variation in belief is compatible with one belief being objectively correct. Option D describes the fallacy rather than refuting it; that inference is exactly what's being questioned.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Under individual moral subjectivism, if you say 'slavery is wrong' and I say 'slavery is not wrong,' which of the following is true?
AOne of us is making a factual error that could be corrected with evidence
BWe are genuinely contradicting each other about an objective moral fact
CWe are not actually contradicting each other — we are each reporting our own attitudes
DWe are both wrong because moral claims have no truth value at all
On individual subjectivism, 'slavery is wrong' means something like 'I disapprove of slavery.' If both speakers are reporting their own attitudes, there is no contradiction — just as there is no contradiction when two people say 'I like coffee' and 'I don't like coffee.' This is a famous objection to subjectivism: it seems to make genuine moral disagreement impossible, reducing apparent moral debates to mere reports of different personal attitudes. Options A and B assume moral realism; option D describes error theory, a distinct view.
Question 3 True / False
Because cultures disagree about moral questions, moral relativism should be true.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is the central inferential error the topic warns against. The premise (descriptive relativism) is true: moral beliefs vary across cultures. But the conclusion (normative relativism: therefore no objective moral truth) does not follow. The identical argument applied to science — 'cultures disagree about whether the Earth orbits the Sun, so there is no fact of the matter' — is plainly invalid. Moral disagreement is compatible with objective moral facts that are difficult to know or widely misunderstood.
Question 4 True / False
A moral objectivist who believes there are universal moral truths is committed to being intolerant of practices that differ from their own culture.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Tolerance and moral objectivism are logically independent. One can believe there are objective moral truths and simultaneously hold that tolerance is itself one of those objective truths — that respecting others' autonomy is genuinely morally required. The conflation of objectivism with intolerance is a common error: it assumes that believing your moral views are correct means you must impose them. Many objectivists hold principled tolerance as a core value precisely because they believe it is objectively good.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the argument from moral progress, and why does it pose a challenge to moral relativism?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The argument holds that history contains genuine moral improvements — the abolition of slavery was not merely a change in cultural convention but a real moral advance. Moral relativism cannot account for this: if morality is just what a culture endorses, then abolishing slavery is simply replacing one convention with another, no different from changing a dress code. But we believe slavery was actually wrong, not just locally disapproved of. The argument requires a standard that transcends convention, which relativism denies exists.
Relativists can respond by defining progress internally — e.g., greater coherence with one's own stated values, or wider inclusion of affected parties. Critics argue this misses what we mean by 'genuine' progress. The force of the argument is strongest for extreme cases: 'the Holocaust was wrong by our current standards' feels like an understatement. If some moral claims are correct independent of what any culture endorses, then relativism is false.