If you're that bored, you can help me with my Ethics homework.
Please explain meta-ethical relativism to me.
When you're done, move on to Utilitarianism.
Thanks.
Relativism in Ethics tends to get confused with Subjectivism.
Relativism, put simply, is a
moral viewpoint which holds that we should do that, and only that, which we
think we ought to do.
This means, under Relativism, that merely having a certain moral opinion on something makes that opinion correct for that person (or Society). Because of this it means that it is impossible to claim or prove that another person's moral judgement is wrong. In fact it leads to the paradoxical consequence that two people holding opposing moral views on a subject are
both right.
Meta-ethical is one of those Post-Modernist trend words. 'Meta' tied to 'Ethics' implies a theory about the
nature of Ethics, so my reading is that 'meta-ethical relativism' is to do with theorising about the ethics of relativistic moral decisions or ideas. That is, trying to see if there is any ethical justification behind relativism.
That's just my view and it almost certainly won't be what your tutor is looking for.
PS most 'meta's' (for example 'meta-linguistics') come unstuck because you are trying to look at a system or structure from outside - but you have to use the language of the structure you are examining in order to discuss it.
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics based on two theses:
1) The rightness of an action is to be judged solely on it's contribution to human happiness or the decrease of human misery.
2) Pleasure is the only thing good in itself, and pain the only evil.
Bentham was an exponent of Utilitarianism (
Principles of Morals and Legislation).
Hobbes, Locke and J S Mill are the main philosophers to read on this subject.