Moral Relativism Essay

Moral relativism is the belief that morality is not absolute but is relative to the beliefs and values of an individual or group.

There are two main types of moral relativism:

1) Cultural moral relativism – the idea that what is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture.

2) Individual moral relativism – the idea that what is considered morally right or wrong varies from person to person.

Cultural moral relativism is often used to justify practices such as polygamy, infanticide, and human sacrifice which are seen as morally wrong in Western cultures, but are seen as normal or even morally good in other cultures.

Individual moral relativism can be used to justify any individual’s actions, no matter how morally reprehensible they may be.

Moral relativism is often seen as a way to avoid making value judgments about other cultures or people. However, it can also lead to a lack of moral action, as there is no absolute morality to guide one’s actions.

Moral relativism is the belief that what is good or bad, right or wrong varies from individual to individual, culture to culture, and time period to time period.

The idea that there are differing moralities between cultures has often been associated with other claims. These include the denial of universal shared values among societies and the belief that we should not judge the morality of practices from cultures different than our own.

Moral relativism is sometimes portrayed as a controversial theory, because it is often misinterpreted as a form of moral subjectivism or nihilism. However, moral relativism is actually quite different from these other views. Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral values; that is, there are no moral values that exist independently of people’s attitudes or beliefs.

Nihilism goes even further, denying that there could be any such thing as morality at all. In contrast, moral relativism does not deny the existence of objective moral values; it merely denies that any particular standpoint is privileged over all others.

There are several different versions of moral relativism, but they all have in common the idea that there is no single, universal morality that applies to everyone, everywhere. Instead, what is considered morally good or bad depends on the customs and beliefs of a particular culture or society.

One common argument for moral relativism is the “argument from diversity”, which points to the fact that there is a great deal of moral diversity in the world as evidence that there can be no single, universal morality. However, this argument is not conclusive, because it does not take into account the possibility that some of this moral diversity may be due to differing circumstances or different levels of development.

Another common argument for moral relativism is the “argument from agreement”, which points out that people often agree on moral issues even when they are from different cultures or have different religious beliefs. This argument is also not conclusive, because it does not take into account the possibility that people may agree on some moral issues for non-moral reasons, such as self-interest or a desire to conform to social norms.

Ultimately, whether or not moral relativism is true depends on whether there are objective moral values that exist independently of people’s attitudes or beliefs. If there are no such values, then moral relativism is true; if there are, then it is false.

Although it wasn’t a widely discussed topic, relativism has been around for centuries. In ancient Greece, Herodotus the historian and Protagoras the sophist both seemed to advocate for some forms of relativism. Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher sometimes interpreted as propounding a form of non-objectivist view that could be read as relativism.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values; and the denial that moral values are objective (that is, independent of human opinion).

There are several varieties of moral relativism. descriptive relativism holds only that there actually are divergent moral practices, not that any particular practice is objectively preferable to any other. Normative relativism holds that, because of this variation, we should suspend judgment on whether any particular practice is right or wrong.

A third, more radical form of relativism–axiological relativism–says not only that there are different moral systems, but also that these systems are incommensurable: they cannot be evaluated against one another according to a single set of standards. This is the view that there is no such thing as objective value, and therefore no way to compare the relative merits of different practices or institutions.

Moral relativism has been criticized from many quarters. One common objection is that it leads to an unbearable moral skepticism, since it implies that we can never pass judgment on the actions of people from other cultures. Critics also argue that relativism cannot account for the existence of cross-cultural moral agreement, or for the fact that people often condemn the practices of their own society.

Defenders of moral relativism have responded to these objections in various ways. First, they point out that the descriptive claim that there is moral diversity does not entail any commitment to skepticism about morality. Second, they argue that even if there are objective values, we may still need to relativize our judgments to particular standpoints in order to appreciate them fully.

Third, they maintain that the fact of cross-cultural agreement can be explained without appeal to objectivism, and fourth, they contend that the apparent agreement within a culture is due more to social pressure than to any real consensus about right and wrong.

Out of all the ancient Greek philosophers, many people are familiar with Plato. However, I will explain Herodotus’s ideas because they were not only interesting to me but also unique. Herodotus was a historian who told a story about how the Persian king Darius asked some Greeks at his court if money could buy them eating their dead father’s bodies–similar to what Callatiae did.

The Callatiae were a tribe in what is now Libya, and they were said to eat their dead. The Greeks replied that there was no price at which they would do such a thing. Darius then asked them if there was any price for which they would be willing to burn alive their father’s bodies the way the Indians did. Again, the Greeks replied that there was no price for which they would do such a thing. Darius then asked why the Indians and Callatiae did such things, and the Greeks replied that it was because it was their custom.

Darius then pointed out that if the Indians and Callatiae thought it was good to eat their dead and burn alive their fathers, then it must be good for them, since it was their custom. And if the Greeks thought it was bad to do those things, then it must be bad for them, since it was their custom. Therefore, Darius concluded, there could be no such thing as objective good or evil, since what is good or evil is relative to one’s culture.

The story of Darius and the Greeks is often used to support the claim that there is no such thing as objective morality, that what is right or wrong is entirely a matter of cultural perspective.

Leave a Comment