Idea originates from Ancient Greek Philosopher Protagoras c480-411 BCE

1. Relativism: Nothing is absolutely bad or Good, everyone decides for themselves according to the time, place, culture and faith they are living in. Idea originates from Ancient Greek Philosopher Protagoras c480-411 BCE Can you suggest strengths / weaknesses of this idea?

2. Relativism • Strengths • Flexible • Focus on people • Allows people to take responsibility • Explains the differences between people’s values • Prohibits a single culture dominating • Takes circumstances into account • Weaknesses • Judgements are always subjective • No 2 people agree • Harder to apply than absolutism • No behaviour is condemned however heinous • If all moral codes should be supported - this becomes an absolute!

3. Relativists believe that morals are subjective – subject to culture, religion, time and place

4. Objective Subjective 1 Sight Sound Smell Taste Touch 2 3 1 = objective / knowable by empirical experience via the 5 senses 2 = subjective = the truth is contained within the person (subject) 3 = objective, but unknowable through empiricism Which type of knowledge is (a) science? (b) The existence of God? (c) morality?

5. Abortion is wrong Objective It gives information about abortion – independent of the speaker. The statement is about abortion Subjective The criteria for establishing the truth of this statement is dependent on the speaker; the statement is about the speaker

6. Surely some morals are more than a matter of opinion? – can rape or child abuse be a matter of opinion? James Rachels argues against simple subjectivism, because IF it were true, moral disagreement would be impossible – but we do disagree about morality – so it cant be simply be an opinion Different people think differently, so morality cannot be a fact Simple subjectivism = everyone makes up their own morals, because morality is subjective. (personal relativism: Protagorus) J. L. Mackie develops a case for the subjectivity of values based on a consideration of the nature of absolute moral values Objective Subjective

7. Objective Subjective J.L.Mackie: “The subjectivity of Values” Mackie’s case is that people, cultures do disagree about morality; we cannot ‘prove’ what is right & wrong, so it can’t be #1 If it was #3, what would these objective moral values be? They would be very odd / unusual Metaphysical queerness = such objective moral values (#3s) would BE different from any other known reality Epistemological queerness = we would have to have a whole new type of moral knowledge to ‘know’ such objective values. How might religious ethics ‘solve’ Mackie’s problems?

8. I have hurt my thumb • Cognitive • Makes an assertion: gives information about the speaker Aaaarrrgggghhhh!!!! Noncognitive Makes no assertion

9. Abortion is wrong • Cognitive • Gives information about abortion, ie it is wrong • Naturalism: we can explain WHY it is wrong • Non–naturalism: we can recognise it as wrong, though not define what makes it wrong • OR • GIVES INFORMATION ABOUT THE SPEAKER: The speaker disapproves of abortion • Makes an assertion / gives information about the speaker (“Simple subjectivism”) evaluative normative Noncognitive Makes no assertion Expresses feelings You should also disapprove of abortion emotivism descriptive

10. Who are the ‘Ethical Relativists’? Aristotle: Differing Human circumstances mean we cannot have a general rule for all situations Protagoras: ‘Man is the measure of all things’ WG Sumner: The ‘right way’ is the way the ancestors handed down – he investigated and appreciated cultural diversity JL Mackie: ‘There are no objective values’ – the different ethical systems of the various cultures are evidence against moral absolutes What do you think Protagoras meant when he said ‘ Man is the measure of all things’?