 Now, before we talk about the universal declaration of human rights as seen on the slide, let us have make a few clarifications and understandings of the concept of ethical relativism. Now, ethical relativism and intellectual humility, well very often the non-judgmental ethical relativist is seen to be intellectually humble that is, she or he considers his or her views and claims to be fallible, amenable to revision, but considering one's claims to be fallible is not denying the possibility of universal values, thus we see that tolerance and intellectual humility touted as the prose of ethical relativism are not really so. What is the point we are trying to make over here? Now, when we talk about the non-judgmental ethical relativist, well we find the ethical relativist to be intellectually humble. Now, what exactly we mean by that? Well, not the non-judgmental ethical agent is or perhaps appears to be more humble, more intellectually humble, less arrogant, does not consider his or her views as the final views, especially in the ethical domain. Now, is that really so? Is the ethical relativist sets an example of intellectually humble behavior, that is, making a claim very well being aware that it could be revised later. So, well let us see if the ethical relativist is actually displays the qualities that she or he is touted to display. Now, let us take a look. Now, if you consider yourself your views as fallible, we make a claim and fallible meaning that amenable to revision or that your views could be wrong and could be corrected later. Now, if your views are amenable to revision, is it the same thing that there is no final view possible? Let us write it on the board to look at to know the distinction. What we need to appear, consider right now, that is fallibility the same thing as relativity. Now, when I make a claim that I am not sure of x, when I talk about x and I am wondering that well whether x, I am not very sure of my opinion or my knowledge of x and that it could be revised in time to come. Am I saying that well, there can be no final claim about x. Now, this is where the crucial distinction we need to draw between the apparent image of a non-judgmental ethical relativist and that of a fallibilist. Now, is it the crucial question that we need to know is, if you take a look at the slide, is the ethical relativist same thing as the fallibilist that is considering oneself fallible. Now, the claim that ethical relativist tend to make is that well, ethical relativism justifies or is a makes a fallible claim and therefore, is intellectually humble less arrogant and therefore, perhaps more preferable. But as we can see here that well, I am not sure of x is a I am not sure of x is a claim of fallibility, but that there can be no final claim about x that does not follow from fallibility. This is a incorrect inference, here we make an incorrect inference that I am not sure of x does nowhere mean or infer that there can be no x, it only means that I am my knowledge of x is not foolproof, it does not make any final claim that there can be no knowledge of x. Now, this is where we would like to see that well, intellectual humility as seen in the slide that this thing called intellectual humility, which is touted as the prose of ethical relativism is not really so. Now, we need to know about ethical relativism as a description and as a metaethical theory. Ethical relativism as a description claims that there are varied and differing moral practices and claims amongst the various collectivities or societies. Metaethical relativism on the other hand claims that it is impossible to have universal values. Descriptive ethical relativism is a description of the state of affairs and is very often confused as a justification of metaethical relativism, but it cannot be so, for a description of the state of affairs cannot be a justification of the impossibility of a state of affairs. Now, what is it, we need to make a fundamental distinction between what is it to describe something and what is it to make a claim about it. So, we now have to talk about descriptive ethical relativism and metaethical relativism. Now, descriptive relativism like any description is a statement of what is the or a description of what is the state of affairs. Now, on the other hand metaethical relativist is making a claim that there cannot be a universal ethical value. As we read in the first bullet of the presentation of the slide, ethical relativism as description claims that there are varied and different moral practices and claims among, there are various moral practices and claims amongst the various collectives and societies. Metaethical relativism on the other hand claims that it is impossible to have a universal value. Now, well let us see what is the problem, let us try to briefly understand what is the problem. Let us say a historian takes a slice of history of human civilization, for 10 years in a particular region. Now, this historian finds that there has been perpetual, there have been perpetual wars and violence in these 10 years of this particular region of these particular people. Now, this is a description of state of affairs. Now, from that if the historian concludes that this particular kind of people cannot or do not know how to live in peace, would we hold such an inference accurate? That is what, what is the question we would like to focus on. This is a very interesting distinction that we would like to make and apply perhaps in your day to day lives. Whenever you see a description, is it a final claim? Can we infer a final claim from a descriptive state of affairs? Let us say we find that well in this particular person's life, suppose someone who is 15 years old and he has been or she has been stealing for the past 7 to 8 years since the time sure he has been sensible or conscious. This is a description of his life. Now, would this mean that this person is going to steal forever or that this person is inherently a thief? Well, most of us would make our judgments. That is how we generalize and make a judgment. A machine that has broken down several times is judged to be an untrustworthy machine. A machine that has not broken down for several years of usage is a trustworthy machine. However, logically can we infer a claim from a description of the state of affairs? Now, look at this. Now, this particularly comes when we talk about prejudices. Prejudices are invalid inferences from state of affairs. Now, if a particular race is seen to be say very violent, now concluding that this race will always be violent or this race is a violent race is an invalid justification, is an invalid inference. Now, strictly speaking this is an example of a prejudice. A prejudice is an invalid inference from description. Perhaps let me put that down as an interesting note. If you look at the slide, a prejudice is an invalid inference from a description of a particular state of affairs. Now, we would like to bring this analogy back into ethical relativism. That well, that we have been observing that throughout the world there are different moral practices, different times have had different moral values, different moral judgements. Is that solid or rigorous justification for the meta-ethical claim of relativism? So, can we infer this? Can we infer meta-ethical relativism from descriptive ethical relativism? Now, this happens most of the times when we talk about prejudice. Prejudice is when we see a description of state of affairs that well, most terrorists belong to this particular religion. Therefore, this religion promotes terrorism. That is a prejudice because that is a prejudice from a description of a state of affairs. We need to find reasons for justifying why, justifying the claim that we make. So, when I make a meta-ethical claim that well, universal values are impossible. It is not enough if I say that universal values, that there have been no universal values throughout the course of history. So, no universal values does not infer that there can be no universal values. Now, this is the anomaly or the difficulty that we would like to point out. That descriptive ethical relativism as we see in the slide is a description of the state of affairs and is very often confused as a justification of meta-ethical relativism. But, it cannot be so for a description of the state of affairs cannot be a justification of the impossibility of the state of affairs. So, we now should be clear that ethical relativism as a description and as a meta-ethical theory. We are particularly talking about ethical relativism as a meta-ethical theory. Now, who would find out ethical relativism as a description? Well, a sociological anthropological survey, empirical evidence out there would find out what is that there are varied cultural practices that would be a descriptive moral claim or descriptive claim of ethical relativism that there are different moral practices. Now, what claim we are making is that there are difference in views there cannot be a common agreed view. Now, this is the kind of inference that we are pointing out with our difficulty with that there are difference in views, but there cannot be a common agreed view. Now, coming back to the slide, let us look at the next slide. Now, ethical relativism to ethical universalism. Meta-ethical relativism is neither proved nor disproved by the existing variety of or existing variety or difference in moral values and practices. So, what was this existing variety of difference moral views and practices? This is nothing but descriptive ethical relativism. So, meta-ethical relativism cannot be justified by descriptive ethical relativism. Whenever we talk about ethical relativism, this is descriptive ethical relativism. We mean meta-ethical relativism. So, whenever we refer to ethical relativism, we are meaning meta-ethical relativism. Now, meta-ethical relativism is contrary to ethical objectivism or ethical universalism or ethical absolutism. The position that claims that there are or can be universal moral values, can there be universal moral values? That when if your answer to that is yes, then you are an ethical universalist or an ethical absolutist or objectivist. If your answer is no, then you are a meta-ethical relativist. So the question to be answered is, can there be a single or any universal ethical value? Universal ethical value. This is the question. If your answer is yes, then you are a meta-ethical relativist. If your answer is no, then you are an ethical objectivist or ethical absolutist or an ethical universalist. Now, ethical universalism claims that there is at least one universal or universalizable ethical value. Now, let us say more about ethical absolutism. Now, the contrary of ethical relativism is mind the word, use of the word contrary. The contrary of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism or ethical universalism. Now, when I choose the word contrary, what I mean that well, ethical relativism and ethical absolutism cannot both be true at the same time. However, both can be false at the same time. Thus, such a situation would be that of a ethical nihilism that completely denies the ethical domain that there can be no value judgment. So, ethical relativism and ethical absolutism are false. So, if I would have used the word contradictory, that would mean that any one of the two, ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is true at a time. But by the use of contrary, the possibility that both ethical relativism and ethical absolutism are false remains. The absolutist or universalist frequently connoted the fanatic or the extremist, but this is only the connotation and not the full meaning of it. When one takes a stand in an ethical issue, one is becoming an ethical absolutist. The universal declaration of human rights is one such absolutist or relativist claim. Let us take a look at a few of its articles. Now, before that contrary of ethical relativism, when I mean that what do we mean by ethical absolutism. Now, whenever I use the word absolutist or ethical objectivist, perhaps the connotation or the impression that comes to us is that of a fanatic of that of a extremist or even that of a terrorist. And yes, a terrorist who believes that he is forwarding one ethical or she is forwarding one ethical value, which ought to be the final universal value is an ethical absolutist. Because one claims that well, the terrorist would claim that the value for which she or he is fighting violently is the value that should be the final universal value. So, this is perhaps the most common impression of ethical relativist, ethical absolutist that we have, the fanatic, the extremist even bordering on the terrorist. Now, that would be uncharitable on even an inaccurate reading of what ethical absolutism would be. Well, when we claim, we make any moral claim for the other, when we make any moral judgment, we are making an absolutist claim. When we are sentencing somebody or when the society or the law or the government is sentencing somebody for a violent crime, it is making an absolute moral claim that violence no matter what by the aggrieved, does not have the right to be violent on the aggressor. Justice is only when it is done through the third party mediation or ever when we make any such claim, we are making a moral absolutist claim. Remember, with the talk about the puppy, the bystander watching the puppy being trampled upon by another person. So, when you make a claim that well, the puppy has not provoked you, has not caused any harm to you, why are you, we would call such a person perhaps sadistic that well, who gets pleasure out of giving pain and that would be morally wrong, because we are holding it as a final universal moral value that unprovoked violence or giving pain for the sake of giving pain is wrong no matter what. So, such a claim is an absolute moral claim. Now, let us take a concrete example of what is an ethical absolutist claim, because we can be wrong about our ethical absolutism, but we cannot proceed in the moral path only to with an assumption of ethical absolutism or ethical universalism, because without such an assumption, there is no progress in a moral dialogue, there is no point of a genuine rational discussion. Now, let us take a first look at the universal declaration of human rights and few of its articles and see that how does it embed values in it and claims ethical absolutism. Well, let us take the universal declaration of human rights. The first article says, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood. Now, why you could ask that are everybody born free, why can I not raise my raise a infant or raise a child as my slave. So, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights is a very substantial absolutist moral claim that everyone is endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. So, this is an indirect attack on the possibility of slavery that one can enslave the other, that one's dignity exceeds over the rights of the other. Let us look at the article 2, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, there can be no distinction, no distinction shall be made between made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent trusts, non-self governing or under any other limitation or sovereignty and sovereignty. Now, this is the second part of the article. So, why does one race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national and social origin, property, birth and other status become irrelevant. So, there is some kind of a fundamental human equality that this article is hinting at. Let us look at article 3, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. We could question why? Well, this is an absolutist claim by people coming together. Now, are all absolutist claims only empirical claims? Well, there are many claims which are non-empirical, which are say the example of geometric or arithmetic or mathematical claims, they are non-empirical claims, they are demonstrable, deduction is a means of showing a claim that is intrinsically valid. Now, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. The fourth article reads, no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms, five, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, six, everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law, seven, all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law, all are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Now, we see the seven articles of universal declaration of human rights. Now, what does this universal declaration of human rights claim? It is hinting at, it is not hinting, it is aggressively or assertively claiming that there is something fundamentally equal about human beings and that one cannot enter into a contract of slavery even out of his or her own will. So, this is making a very assertive, positivistic moral claim and assertively universalist that well, slavery and slave trade shall be banned, everybody has a right to a defense in a court of law before being punished. So, why should these rights be there? Why should we have these dignity? Why can someone not sell himself or herself even if one himself or herself wants to? Well, these are claims that most of the countries of the world have signed in, most of the governments have signed in, most of these were formed at a time when the world was war ravaged and they wanted to have some universal declaration of human rights that, Relativism, ethical relativism or cultural relativism could not be the excuse for tolerating what was considered as violation of fundamental human values. No matter what our differences are in race, color, language, religion, beliefs and opinions, there is at some level we have fundamental human equality. So, the entire declaration of human rights is making that assertive claim that no matter what our superficial differences are at some level we are all human beings and thereof we have the same certain level of dignity which cannot be violated no matter what. Now, so let us conclude our discussion that what are we trying to arrive at? Metaethical relativism denies any hierarchy possible in the various ethical frames of reference. So, what is Metaethical Relativism? It denies that there is that possibility of any hierarchy between the various moral frames of reference. So, Metaethical Relativism is not claiming that well we should we have universal values right now. What it is claiming is that universal values are Metaethical Relativism is claiming that universal values are not possible. Metaethical Relativism is not claiming that well universal values are not possible now. In fact descriptive ethical relativism is actually describing that we do not have any universal value now perhaps, but that it is not possible that is the Metaethical Relativistic claim. Second, ethical practices are not the same thing as ethical value. We saw the difference between value and practice. Now, ethical practices are not the same thing as an ethical value. An ethical value is embedded in ethical practices. A value conditioned by the then current knowledge claims result in an ethical practice. Let us take an interesting example that I think of regarding the distinction between value and practice. Let us say the value we talk about is Justice. Now, if Justice is a value let us talk about ancient system that 1000 years back in India it would be just or fair for a person born in a particular caste to have access to education and a person born in a particular caste not to have access to an education. Now, they considered that system fair. Today, we again have discrimination between who gets access to say higher education. It is perhaps now mostly in a procedure of examination that all of us are allowed to take an examination and only the ones who qualify or who the top 5 percent or 10 percent depending on the available vacancy in the choice of educational institution get into chosen educational institution. Now, both of these are examples of Justice. We would consider the ancient system unjust because it made a distinction between the place or the position social standing of birth. Now, let us take a deeper look into this issue. What was Justice according to them and what is Justice according to us? Well, the value Justice according to them was well one ought to get what one deserves. Now, wait a minute isn't this the same thing as we would mean right now that getting what one deserves that what one has worked for. So, I have worked for my entrance examination or procedure and I have earned my college seat, but if the values are the same how is the practice different the practices seemingly contradict each other. Now, here when I say that the when I quote if you look at the slide that a value conditioned by the then current knowledge claims result in an ethical practice. Now, a value which is conditioned by the then current knowledge. So, the ancient time if the their knowledge claims where that well where one is born is not an accident, but a result accumulative result of what one has done in prior lives. Now, this is the metaphysical assumption there that birth is no accident, birth is a result of what one has done in past lives. Now, we may not agree with these metaphysical assumptions, we may not agree with these knowledge claims today, but if these knowledge claims are held then we see that well we can perhaps better understand that why they held why the value the value Justice remains the same, but its practice differed. Today we believe that birth or the position of birth is an accident that in what social position one lines up is nearly an accident. So, rather one earns his admission by meritocracy or by working hard towards one towards the entrance procedure. So, both Justice as a value remains the same, but practice is differed. The earlier practice was because of the that time of knowledge that well or birth is determined by your prior actions and therefore that your birth itself is essential as a qualification for you to have access to education or to be denied access to education. Whereas, now again we have in discrimination, if you are if you have cleared your examination, your entrance examinations then you have access to education, if you have not then you do not have access to that education. So, this discrimination seems fair, that discrimination seems unfair only because our knowledge claims today differ from our knowledge claims in ancient times. So, where we see in the third bullet that varied ethical practices do not necessarily indicate a difference in ethical values, that is superficially different ethical practices may have the same value underlying. For example, Justice as a value in ancient Indian system versus that in modern meritocracy, something that we just talked about. Next, there may be various kinds of ethical frame of reference, cultural relativism, individual relativism or subjectivism, psychological, genetic. Well, an issue that we need to take note of is that relativism when we say different frames of reference and that there can be no hierarchy. The first instance that perhaps comes to our mind is cultural relativism or that our moral values are shaped by our culture and people raised in different cultures are bound to have different cultural, different moral values or practices I would put more accurately. But, in case of metaethical relativists claim that even values differ depending on the culture. Now, that culture is here one frame of reference, there can be many frames of reference, there can be the individual as the frame of reference that I alone determine what is right and wrong for me. So, this would almost shrink to subjectivism where the frame of reference of morality again below the window under the umbrella of moral relativism or ethical relativism would be subjectivism. There could be other factors such as psychological or genetic factors that well one is genetically programmed to have such kind of value system. So, we can have various factors but the most dominant and easy or immediate intuition is of that of cultural relativism. Now, the second bullet reads metaethical relativism or ethical relativism is different from a description of the variety in ethical practices. The description of varieties in ethical practices cannot be a justification for the impossibility of universal or absolute ethical values. So, if you remember we just talked about the description, the description of state of affairs is not a justification for the impossibility of universal claims. Ethical relativism seems to be more tolerant, plural and much less arrogant. We talked about intellectual humility and fallibility but again we saw that this is not the claim. Fallibility and intellectual humility are only instances of fallibilism not instances of relativism. An absolutist can always be a fallibilist. So, I can believe that there are universal values but I may not have reached them that what I have known are perhaps fallible and amenable to revision. So, with this we come to the final slide that when we discussed to arrive at a single ethical position, we implicitly assume the possibility of a universal value. Now, this is a crucial point that covered over this entire topic. Whenever we argue to arrive at a universal position or to arrive to argue to reach a resolution not using force but arguments or rational discussion, we are implicitly assuming universal values or moral absolutism or universalism. The ethical relativist cannot opine or engage with others moral values. Now, if I am sincerely in this is a question which can when perhaps most of the people could would answer that moral values that are you an ethical relativist most of us would perhaps say yes that well different cultures, different values but now if this is a question you ask yourself that one cannot opine or engage with others moral values. The ethical relativist has difficulty in explaining a change in ethical values of an individual or a collective especially when it is claimed to emerge out of rational discussion. Something like whether sexuality is in the domain of value judgment. Now, if we plan to discuss, if we plan to sit in a parliament or in a talk show or in a group session to find out whether what is the collective opinion or what is the right thing to do and we involve in the process of rational discussion about values then we cannot be an ethical relativist. An ethical relativist cannot make any judgment about others values. A rational discussion on morality assumes a metaethical position of universalism or absolutism which is a denial or which is contrary to ethical relativism. So, it denies ethical relativism. With this we would like to come to an end of ethical relativism. So, keeping in mind that well if the relativist is one who finds it impossible to engage in a moral discussion. So, how do moral changes occur? How do value changes occur? So, these changes that occur are occurring only when people discuss, people think about it or people are active participants in the process of moral theorizing not passive recipients of culture or emotions or socio-psychological makeup. So, whenever we can engage in a rational moral discussion we are assuming ethical absolutism. So, ethical relativism is almost a denial of moral is not almost totally a denial of moral discussion. So, with this we come to an end of ethical relativism.