Disagreement Is Not Relativism

Disagreement Is Just a Fact

Two cultures disagree about a practice. Does that settle who is right?

No. It reports something true about beliefs, not about truth.

Two people can also calculate the same equation differently. One of them is simply mistaken.

Disagreement is evidence that people hold different moral views. It is not proof that every view is correct for its holder.

Three Kinds of Relativism

The word relativism hides three separate claims.

Descriptive relativism reports what people believe. Metaethical relativism says what makes a moral judgment true or justified. Normative relativism recommends how we ought to respond, usually with tolerance.

Chapter 1 by Paul Rezkalla keeps these apart on purpose.

Learners often collapse all three into one claim.

The Missing Premise

Here is the common leap.

Two communities disagree about a practice. Therefore each community's judgment is true for it.

That argument moves from a report about beliefs to a claim about truth. Something is missing in between.

Moving from one level to another requires an argument, and the argument is rarely stated.

The Reform Problem

Now test the metaethical claim against a hard case.

Suppose a culture's current approval makes an action right for that culture.

Then a reformer who rejects an accepted discriminatory custom counts as mistaken. Not because of the argument, but because the majority still accepts the custom.

Yet societies clearly contain moral criticism from within.

Progress or Only Change?

The reform problem has a second edge.

If approval alone makes a practice right, then a society that changes its mind has not improved. It has only changed.

Moral progress would lose its meaning.

So relativism does not automatically give the strongest foundation for tolerance and reform, even though it is often praised for doing so.

What Rejecting Relativism Does Not Mean

Two boundaries keep this honest.

Learning another culture's reasons before judging it is intellectual humility. It is not automatically metaethical relativism.

And rejecting relativism does not license contempt, coercion, or confidence that your first judgment is correct.

Criticizing relativism also does not require denying that real cultural difference exists.

How to Use This

When you meet a relativist claim, do three things.

Label it. Is it descriptive, metaethical, or normative?

Find the missing premise. What would carry the argument from beliefs to truth?

Test it with a reformer. Ask whether the view makes an internal critic wrong just because the majority disagrees.

Two cultures disagree about a moral practice. This disagreement alone proves that each culture's judgment is true for that culture.

• True
• False

Answer: False

False. Disagreement establishes a fact about different beliefs. It does not by itself show that every belief is morally true for its holder.

A report that two communities disagree is _____; saying a practice is true for one culture is _____; recommending tolerance is _____.

Answer: A report that two communities disagree is descriptive; saying a practice is true for one culture is metaethical; recommending tolerance is normative.

Descriptive relativism reports differences in belief. Metaethical relativism makes truth or justification relative to a person or culture. Normative relativism recommends tolerance or noninterference.

Two communities disagree about whether a practice is right. What would be needed to conclude that each community's judgment is true for it?

• An argument connecting disagreement to moral truth
• A recommendation that both communities tolerate one another
• A report that the communities have different beliefs
• Proof that the majority supports the practice

Answer: An argument connecting disagreement to moral truth

An additional argument is needed to connect a descriptive fact about disagreement with a metaethical claim about moral truth. The disagreement alone does not make that connection.