OPPOSING JUDGMENTS

A Comparative Analysis of Moral Realism and Moral Relativism

By: Joshua Pate

 2

Throughout history philosophers have debated the existence of objective morality.

Philosophers of previous centuries, such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, maintained a

concrete belief in the absolute existence of objective moral judgments. Their beliefs were based

upon individually-devised methods of determining how these judgments apply to all persons, on

a universal level. Today, some philosophers take alternative approaches that argue for the

probable, rather than absolute, existence of objective moral judgments. Philosopher Richard N.

Boyd employs this approach. These arguments are known, collectively, as theories of moral

realism. Some argue against any form or belief in moral realism, including philosopher Gilbert

Harman. Gilberts opposition to moral realism is explained through his defense of moral

relativism: a theory that proposes morality is not objective, but dependent upon relative cultural,

social and personal values. This essay argues that Harmans defense of moral relativism is

superior to Boyds defense of probable moral realism based upon the evidence presented and

logical strength of each theory.

Before dissecting each theory, a consideration must be made for two early arguments for

moral realism. German philosopher Immanuel Kant offered the first. Kant introduced an

approach to asserting objective moral judgments through his method, Kantian Ethics. Kant

believed an action could only be considered good if an individual performed it out of duty, rather

than desire. He believed in the use of human reason to decide what acts should be deemed good,

or dutiful, and introduced a formula for determining these acts. Kants Formula for Universal

Law mandates a person should only act in a way that may be beneficial to all persons. He

believed an objective, rational morality exists independent of circumstance and one should only

act if they wished for their actions to become universal law.

John Stuart Mill, while maintaining a belief in moral realism, took a different approach to
 3

determining objective moral judgments. Mill introduced his belief through his own formula for

determining morality, known as Utilitarianism. Mills Utilitarianism contested that one should

act only in a way that produced the greatest form of happiness for all persons. For example, he

supported that legislation should endow extra voting power unto university graduates; he

believed they could better determine what is best for society because of their advanced

education. He believed what is best for society directly correlates to producing the greatest level

of happiness for all persons. If mindfulness of this goal was placed into action, Mill believed an

objective morality could exist.

Richard N. Boyd has taken more of an in-depth approach to the support of moral realism.

Through his essay entitled, How to Become a Moral Realist, Boyd argues for the probable

existence of objective moral judgments rather than their absolute existence. He applies a method

for his argument based upon scientific realism, the method scientists utilize for proving the

probable existence of scientific phenomena. Initially, scientists use a theory-dependent method

for determining scientific truths based upon a general hypothesis. This general hypothesis is then

supported by experiments that may lead to the actual existence of such truths.

For example, Boyd explains that the electron theory was used in a way of predicting the

existence of electrons. Electrons were considered unobservable entities. However, through

continuous experimentation and belief in the probable existence and sustainment of the electron

theory as a form of prediction, scientists now assert that electrons do exist. Boyd believes this

method of continual belief in the theory of an unobservable entity produces greater results of

absolute fact and evidence than to simply reject the theory because it initially possesses no

observable existence.

A simpler example would be that humans assumed germs were the cause of sickness and
 4

death for centuries before able to observe and confirm their existence. Thus, people were told to

wash themselves and be clean to avoid germs and, consequentially, sickness and death. Now

scientists have confirmed the observable existence of germs and our non-evidence based

suggestions to maintain cleanliness to avoid sickness and death were correct. Boyd believes that

if we apply this approach to the study of morality, as we have to the study of scientific

phenomena, and continue to study and evaluate it, it is probable that we will be able to

eventually prove the existence of objective moral judgments.

On the opposing side, Gilbert Harman presents his support of the theory of moral

relativism. Harman states in his essay, Moral Relativism Defended, that objective moral

judgments do not exist but are relative to motivating attitudes of groups of individuals through

forms of inner-judgments. He claims these inner-judgments are implicit agreements among

individuals that share certain reasons for committing such actions. These judgments are implicit

because they need no explicit statement of an agreement, but only require both individuals have

shared intentions and motivations for their actions. Harman uses the term ought to illustrate

when it is logical to place moral judgments upon one another. One can only claim that another

ought to do something or ought to not do something if the one placing judgment and the one

committing the act have shared desires, goals, motivations, etc. Basically, one person can make

an inner-judgment upon another person, only if they both share reasons for their actions within a

common culture or group. For example, one person can make an inner-judgment upon another

person that they ought to honor a promise if honoring a promise is a shared intention between

both individuals for producing positive motivation, goals, desires etc.

Harman explains that moral judgments cannot be placed upon individuals who do not

implicitly agree upon shared intentions. He introduces Hitler and the Holocaust as an example.
 5

He states that although we may view Hitler as evil for murdering millions of innocent Jews, we

cannot say he ought not to have killed them, in a moral sense, because we do not share intentions

or reasons for actions with Hitler. Hitler had a reason for killing millions of Jews, which was to

perpetuate the Aryan race as a superior and dominant race among all others. We do not have that

goal in mind and any reason for murdering millions of Jews, therefore we cannot make a moral

judgment that Hitler ought not to have committed these acts. Harman maintains that we can only

make inner-judgments with those who are relative to our implicitly-agreed and shared intentions,

and, beyond this, moral judgments cannot exist. Harmans logically-superior argument better

answers the question of whether moral judgments exist over Boyds argument, mainly because it

analyzes practices that have been used and proved beneficial by societies throughout history.

The method of placing a moral judgment upon a person with shared intentions has

succeeded in condemning individuals, who have been raised in cultures, taught and exhibited a

belief in a shared moral code, and then gone against this code. This seems to be a continually

useful approach in maintaining law and order within certain cultures while also respecting

opposing beliefs concerning law and order in other cultures. The never-ending pursuit to define

universal justice and how it can be applied to all types of people may inevitably be an unfruitful

one. Objective morality may not truly exist and, as of now, has never been absolutely proven and

accepted. However, relative morality is displayed every day through various cultures and groups,

each proclaiming their specific moral code to be correct in determining justice or, at the very

least, the most correct, currently. There is always room for improvement but there should not be

room for continual experimentation with the belief that morality is ultimately objective.

Harmans claims to moral relativism have shown, in some way, to actually work within our

society, while Boyds are adopted from scientific theories attempting to relate to the issue of
 6

morality.

While Harman seems to maintain the most probable and logical approach to determining

the existence of moral judgments, there is certainly room for error in his claims. One possible

objection to his argument is that the advancement of modern technology could possibly interfere

with the production of shared motivations, goals and desire among individuals of a shared group,

resulting in a lack of shared inner-judgments. Two individuals may grow up in the same area and

live in the same type of culture. Modern technology and the internet, may be used to educate one

of these two individuals of goals and motivations opposite to those held by the group in which

they live. If the person adopts these opposing goals and motivations before adopting those shared

by their group, they could also adopt opposing inner-judgments. Then, per Harman, it would not

be logical to place judgment upon both individuals because they do not share the same reasons

for actions, even though they may live within the same group. If this type of occurrence were to

rapidly expand with the growth of technology, it could produce many differences of opposing

inner-judgments that would not fit Harmans criteria for a practical application of moral

relativism.

Gilbert Harman has not introduced a perfect method for determining the existence of

moral judgments. However, in comparison to the ideas of philosophers of previous centuries and

Richard N. Boyd, his idea of moral relativism seems to be the most logical and, currently, the

most applicable to the ethics of modern society. While studies should not and will not be ceased

because of Harmans argument, they should be continued through observations of the behaviors

of thriving cultures around the world.