Ethical Relativism And Moral Relativism

962 Words4 Pages
In this paper, I will argue against moral relativism as the correct way to judge human morality. There are several issues with moral relativism, and I will focus on why moral relativism’s argument is false and also consider the implications of accepting relativism. I will propose an alternative framework for making moral judgments about right and wrong and consider relativist objections. Philosophers often vary in their usage of moral relativism, so, for the purpose of this paper, I will be considering moral relativism to be the belief that moral judgments are right and wrong only relative to the framework of a community. It follows from this that relativists also believe no moral standpoint can be proved to be objectively superior to another. Let us consider the argument that moral relativism proposes. Since a relativist believes that moral absolutes do not exist, it follows that he must believe that all moral claims are only preferences. For example, a relativist would say that the claim ‘murder is wrong’ is true only if and only if the speaker believes it is true. So, if I say ‘Killing is wrong’, it is morally true if I actually believe what I say. It follows from this that, according to relativism, moral disagreements are disagreements about preferences (as opposed to facts). This is because, as mentioned, relativism believes morality to be preferences, so disagreements of morality must be disagreements over preferences. Since this claim follows from the main argument,
Open Document