Top Ten Problems with Moral Relativism by D. A. Horner

(1) The scope of Cultural Moral Relativism is hopelessly vague: What constitutes a culture/group in the relevant sense, and who has the authority to represent the defining moral values of that culture (majority view, consensus, political leadership)?

• It is ambiguous because individuals belong to multiple groups, making it unclear which group's values should define morality.

• It is clearly defined by a single cultural identity.

• It is determined solely by political leadership.

• It is based on an absolute consensus among all groups.

Assuming MR is true and what is right is defined as whatever the cultural majority believes is right, then the moral reformer who seeks to change societal norms (such as MLK, abolitionists, Jesus, Gandhi, Vaclav Havel) is, by definition, morally wrong. Does this mean that such reformers, who are generally viewed as moral heroes, would actually be considered immoral?

• Yes, they would be considered immoral as per MR.

• No, they would still be considered moral heroes.

• It depends on other moral considerations.

• The statement is self-contradictory.

(3) If MR is true, there is in principle no moral change: Which of the following best summarizes the argument presented? If what is right is just defined as whatever the cultural majority believes is right, there can be no moral progress or regress (either intrapersonal or intracultural), and thus neither moral improvement nor decline is possible, meaning that even actions taken to diminish racism do not reflect any moral change.

• There is no moral change.

• Moral progress is evident in the fight against racism.

• Change within a person or culture constitutes moral change.

• Objective moral standards permit changes that improve society.

If moral relativism (MR) is true, then which of the following accurately reflects its implications regarding moral differences?

• There are moral differences between individuals and cultures.

• There are no moral differences between individuals or cultures; all moral claims are based on individual beliefs.

• There are moral differences that are universally measurable.

• Moral beliefs can be proven right or wrong with an external standard.

The concept of cultural relativism as discussed in the passage is the idea that cultural practices should be understood in their own context, without judgment.

• It is the idea that cultural practices should be understood in their own context, without judgment.

• It is the belief in the superiority of one culture over another.

• It is the rejection of cultural differences.

• It is an argument favoring absolute universal values.

What is the main argument against moral relativism (MR) presented in the passage?

• It leads to self-contradiction.

• It denies any consistent moral truth.

• It disregards cultural differences.

• It fails to acknowledge emotional responses.

Identify the irony mentioned in the passage: moral objectivists assert universal moral truths, yet their stance is ironically similar to relativists, whose view depends on context.

• Moral objectivists claim absolute morals but are challenged by the context-dependent nature of morals.

• Moral objectivists support moral relativism.

• Moral relativists believe in absolute morals just like objectivists.

• There is no irony between the views of moral objectivists and relativists.

Why is MR considered practically incoherent according to the passage?

• Because its theoretical framework leads to contradictions in practical applications.

• Because it is based on arbitrary assumptions.

• Because it fails to account for empirical evidence.

• Because it is logically self-contained.

Moral relativism is considered morally incoherent because it denies the existence of objective moral standards, making any moral claims self-contradictory. Which option best summarizes this explanation?

• It denies the existence of objective moral standards, rendering moral claims self-contradictory.

• It strongly supports objective moral truths.

• It offers clear and consistent justifications for all moral beliefs.

• It entirely rejects any form of moral inquiry.

The analogy of playing soccer in the passage illustrates the incoherence of moral relativism by showing that just as the game relies on fixed rules, moral standards should not be arbitrarily relative.

• It underscores that while soccer is governed by clear and consistent rules, moral relativism results in inconsistent and incoherent ethical judgments.

• It implies that soccer is a game with simple rules similar to moral relativism.

• It shows that moral relativism is as flexible as the rules of soccer.

• It indicates that both soccer and moral relativism are subject to individual interpretation.