Philosophy EthicsWhere Do Moral Truths Come From? Objectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism
Sage, a calm robed mentor with a thoughtful half-smile, stands at a wide chalkboard where three labeled paths branch outward from a single chalked question mark — each path leading to a different philosophical horizon — and gestures toward them with an open hand, inviting the learner to choose.
- Define metaethics and distinguish it from normative ethics
- Compare moral objectivism, cultural relativism, and emotivism as competing answers to what grounds moral authority
- Identify what each view claims justifies a moral statement
- Evaluate one common objection to cultural relativism and explain why it is self-undermining
- Classify sample moral statements by their metaethical commitment
Key terms
- Metaethics
- The second-order study of what moral claims are and whether they can be true, distinct from normative ethics.
- Moral objectivism
- The view that some moral claims are true for everyone, independent of opinion or culture.
- Cultural relativism
- The view that moral claims are true only relative to a particular community's standards.
- Emotivism
- The non-cognitivist view that moral statements express attitudes and are not true or false.
Three Answers to One Question
These positions are best kept apart by asking what each says grounds a moral claim. Objectivism grounds it in something culture-independent — reason, facts about well-being, or mind-independent moral truth — so a culture can be mistaken. Relativism grounds it in a community's actual standards, so 'wrong' just means 'disapproved of here.' Emotivism denies any grounding in fact at all, treating the claim as an expression of feeling rather than an assertion. Crucially, relativism and emotivism are different: the relativist thinks moral claims are true-or-false but only locally, while the emotivist thinks they are not true-or-false in the first place.
The Self-Undermining Objection to Relativism
Cultural relativism runs into trouble when it is paired with the slogan 'we ought to tolerate every culture's values.' Tolerance, stated as a duty binding on everyone regardless of their culture, is itself a universal, culture-independent moral claim — exactly the kind of claim relativism says cannot exist. So the popular argument for relativism smuggles in objectivism. A second cost is that strict relativism makes moral progress undescribable: if right just means 'approved here and now,' then abolishing slavery was merely a change in approval, not an improvement, which clashes with how we actually reason about reform.
Worked examples
A student argues for relativism by saying 'everyone must always respect every culture's values.' Evaluate the argument.
- Restate the conclusion the student wants: that no culture-independent moral truths exist, which is the core relativist claim.
- Examine the premise being used: 'everyone must always respect every culture' is asserted as binding on all people regardless of their own culture.
- Detect the inconsistency: that premise is itself a universal, culture-independent moral rule — precisely the kind of truth relativism denies — so the argument contradicts its own conclusion.
- Conclude carefully: the argument is self-undermining, which does not by itself prove objectivism but shows this particular route to relativism fails.
Answer: The argument is self-undermining: it defends relativism using a universal moral rule (always respect every culture), and that universal rule is exactly the culture-independent truth relativism claims cannot exist.
Activity
Sort each card into the metaethical view it best expresses — place each card under Moral Objectivism, Cultural Relativism, or Emotivism
Practice
Take three everyday moral statements and label each as objectivist, relativist, or emotivist in form.
Explain why describing moral progress is difficult for a strict cultural relativist to do consistently.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Relativism and emotivism are the same viewRelativism makes moral claims locally true or false, while emotivism denies they are true or false at all.
- Tolerance proves cultural relativism is correctA universal duty to tolerate every culture is itself a culture-independent moral claim, which contradicts relativism.
Check your understanding
What question does metaethics primarily investigate?
According to emotivism, the statement 'lying is wrong' is best understood as:
A student says cultural relativism is right because 'everyone should respect every culture's values, always.' Why is this reasoning self-undermining?
Recap
Metaethics asks what grounds a moral claim, and objectivism, cultural relativism, and emotivism give rival answers — culture-independent truth, local community standards, or mere expression of feeling — with relativism facing the self-undermining problem and difficulty explaining moral progress.
Reflect
If your own culture's values changed overnight, would what is right change with them?