1. Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours:
(b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on
what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on
the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts'
may alter from society to society.
But does it make sense to say that if there's no God, there's no such
thing as morality?
(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are
aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of
those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people,
notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued
that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single
objective morality and that morality varies with culture.
Is this a good argument for moral relativism?
Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There
is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say
it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube.
What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter
about what the shape of the earth is?"
(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories
that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its
consequences.