Moral Ambivalence: Relativism or Pluralism?

Abstract

When we disagree with each other at the beginning of a debate, we are confident that we are right and the other side is just wrong (More discussions on moral disagreement can be seen at Rowland in Philosophy Compass 12(2), 2017). But at the end of the debate, we could be persuaded that we are wrong and the other side is right. This happens a lot when we disagree on empirical or factual claims. However, when we disagree with each other on moral issues, it is quite rare that either side is persuaded. We could be frustrated by the other’s stubbornness. But sometimes we come to see that the other side has a point. Their view seems reasonable. We might even feel that we could have taken their moral perspective and values. This phenomenon of moral ambivalence is discussed extensively by David Wong as part of his argument for moral relativism that there is no single true morality (Wong 2006). Recently, Agustin Vicente and Agustin Arrieta write to refute Wong’s argument (Vicente and Arrieta in Acta Analytica: International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition 31:207–223, 2016). They argue that moral ambivalence is a phenomenon of moral pluralism, the position that there are different acceptable courses of actions, rather than moral relativism (For many readers, moral pluralism is similar to moral relativism. I will specify the difference later). In this paper, I argue that moral ambivalence does not support the kind of moral pluralism that Vicente and Arrieta argue for. Furthermore, I point out that moral ambivalence does not support Wong’s naturalism, the position that morality has human nature constraints, but it does support the kind of relativism that he endorses.