In “Moral Relativism Defended,” Gilbert Herman states that he believes that morality is mainly based on inner judgments and values created by people in a group. Anything contrary to these agreements by members of a group may be deemed to be immoral. Therefore, morality is not a universal concept but is only relative to a particular group based on their agreements. However, Herman’s argument makes the relation between morality to the agreements and ideologies of the group and not the people. In his assertion, moral judgment is only based on the agreements of the group. However, it may be quite difficult to distinguish this assertion by comparing relativism with universality.
Reading this piece by Gilbert Herman is quite confusing. From my perspective, anything relativism is often juxtaposed with universality. Therefore, by saying the morality is relative to the agreements and judgements of a group of people, means that it cannot be taken to be universal or represent the opinions of everyone. Besides, after reading this article, Herman’s argument implies that a particular group can come up with their set of beliefs about what they believe is moral. Therefore, morality is a dynamic concept that changes from one society to another.
Throughout the article, Herman seems to be detaching an individual from their actions and beliefs. In the section about ‘Inner Judgements,’ he detaches the aspect of being wrong from the action itself. The adjective is only used to define a particular situation and not the person involved in the situation. He argues that the agent has a reason for taking a specific action, thus should be absolved from any judgement. Generally, this reading is quite confusing as one has to detach the agent from their actions and situations. Besides, Herman’s article is quite philosophical and needs a philosophical understanding of morality and its relations to agreements.