Theories Of Moral Relativism

Moral Relativism is defined as the belief that conflicting moral beliefs are true. This carries the impression that what you respect as a right behavior may be a right conduct for you, but not for me. Moral Relativism is an attempt to

Pope Benedict once said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” When discussing the idea of Moral Relativism there are conflicting arguments as to if it is true in society or not. As much as Americans wish to ignore it, and although it has negative as well as positive effects, moral relativism is apparent all over the world. Moral Relativism is true and relevant today through individuals and cultures.

Ethical relativist deny any objective moral values. Cultural relativism explains that in different times and in different places people act in different ways; they acquire different values and ideas of what is morally right and wrong. Moral relativism explains that there are no moral absolutes; everyone can do what they please and how they want whenever they like.

“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.” (Westacott, 2017) Moral relativism is a belief and worldview that states that the individual is the source of what is real and true and that there is no absolute truth in the world. Meaning no religion or way of life is absolutely right and can dictate what is morally sound behavior. Essentially this removes responsibility from ourselves to do what is morally right and allows us to act in a way that satisfies ourselves or meets what our own view of what is morally right says.

The concept of ethical relativism theory raises important issues. Thus, there has been numerous debates on whether ethical relativism is valid or is not valid. Ethical relativism is the view that correct moral standards are relative to individual or cultural commitments. Ethical relativism can take two forms: cultural relativism or ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism is the view that an act is morally right just because it is allowed by guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals.

Relativism, therefore, is a philosophical doctrine that acknowledges that truth, knowledge, and morality are not absolute. Meaning that what may be considered moral or true depends on the context such as culture and society. For this reason, moral relativists believe that different people can have different views regarding what is moral or immoral without either side being wrong or right. Therefore, right, or wrong, good or bad does not exist, as there is no universal standard for determining ethical decisions. In other words, moral values are not objective but rather subjective as they are based on the feelings, values, and preference of a person (Brogaard

Before diving into the arguments for and against moral relativism, it is important to define some key terms including morality, cultural diversity, and tolerance. David Fisher, a Teaching Fellow at King’s College, London defines morality in his book, Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-first Century?. “Morality is thus neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Cultural diversity is simply the existence of various cultures in society. Tolerance is just the ability to accept something that you would not normally agree with.

The theory surrounding ethical relativism also brings an interesting perspective. Ethical relativism is the view that teaches that our ethics evolve over time and change to fit circumstances. It’s when morality and ethics do not always align; someone may consider it morally wrong to get an abortion but also believe it is unethical for a government to ban clinics to perform

Moral relativism is becoming a greater part of society everyday. Since the idea of relativism states that nothing is absolute, the concepts of right and wrong are hazy. People are questioning their morals and wondering what they should believe, but in reality, no one knows. Moral absolutes do not exist in moral relativism. People are able to believe whatever they want, but they are not allowed to express their morals as fact.

Two of the moral theories are relativism and absolutism, but what does this mean? Relativism is define by Wilkins are in short anti-legalist and anti absolutist (85). Relativism and absolutism are a dispute over the moral principles in the world. It is not that they disagree with what about is right and wrong or the moral principles behind them. It is that they are however against how principles should be held. They are in complete contrast to one another, even though their own right can justify both.

Ruth Benedict and Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is an ethical theory that believes that while morals do exist, they depend on each individual culture. This theory also rests on a few moral ideas, the first being that the majority rules. This means that whatever belief the majority of people in a particular society have (which is probably law) is considered morally right. The second point is that what may be considered morally right in one culture may not be right in another.

Ethical universalism and ethical relativism are two types of meta-ethical views, meaning the two theories attempt to understand the reason behind ethical properties, attitudes, boundaries and judgements. Ethical universalism can be viewed as an ideal world, while ethical relativism explains a more realistic perspective on why different cultures can view the same actions differently. The two delve more into the essential meaning of a theory rather than just simply labeling actions as right or wrong.

Relativism is the position that all points of view are pretty much as considerable and the individual makes sense of what is certifiable and relative for them. Relativism surmises that truth is various for unmistakable people not simply that assorted people acknowledge differing things to be legitimate. While there are relativists in science and number juggling, moral relativism is the most generally perceived blend of relativism. Practically everyone has heard a relativist trademark:

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the