Author granted license

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Document Type


Publication Date





University of Chicago Press




Ethical relativism flirts with incoherence by suggesting that incompatible judgments can both be true. This paper shows that some relativistic theories avoid incoherence while others do not. Some theories ground moral judgments on principles ascribed to social groups while others ground moral judgments on principles ascribed to individuals. Some theories regard the relevant principles as applicable to an individual’s own action (agent relativism) while others regard the relevant principles as applicable to the individual’s moral judgments (appraiser relativism). Some theories regard moral judgments as possessing truth values while others regard moral judgments as lacking truth values. Relativistic theories suffer from incoherence if they allow potentially contrary principles to overlap (typically, appraiser theories), but not otherwise (typically, agent theories). Special attention is given to Hare’s “prescriptivism” and Harman’s theory of “inner” judgments as well as to the question whether the avoidance of incoherence renders relativistic theories plausible.

Find on SSRN

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.