Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong

Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

- Paul Stearns

“Whatever we may say about the merits of torturing children for pleasure, and no doubt there is much to be said on both sides, I am sure we all agree it should be done with sterilized instruments.” – G.K. Chesterton

“Man is the measure of all things.”
– Protagoras

One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different times and cultures have radically different moral standards. This assumption fuels moral relativism. Moral relativists believe cultures, individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral values, and that relativism is the best explanation for these differences. Moral relativists also hold that all moral views are equally valid because each culture (or person) invents their own morality.

The assumption that different times have radically different moral standards can also be seen in a position called moral presentism, which maintains that we should not judge the past using our present moral standards. For example, the American comedian Bill Maher recently said that Columbus committed atrocities, “but people back then were generally atrocious.” He argued that our judging Columbus or Washington is like “getting mad at yourself for not knowing what you know now when you were ten”, like saying, “stupid me for wanting to be a breakdancer and ghostbuster.” His point is that it is unfair to judge the past (or his ten-year-old self) from the current more mature perspective.

While there are differences between relativism and presentism, they both make this popular yet questionable assumption that different cultures have different moral standards. In this article, I want to critique this assumption by arguing that fundamental moral values do