What Are 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

Morality seeks to provide a moral agreement that binds the people in a society by providing a blueprint of shared values that dictate what is right and wrong. The two principles of morality are moral objectivism and moral relativism. The thesis of this essay is that moral relativism is a better guide to morality as compared to moral objectivity as it puts things into perspective by considering moral ideas and variables on a universal understanding.

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.

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

Relativism by David Wong address issues attached to moral relativism and common moral values. Wong has a unique perspective when analyzing how we view moral relativism and common moral values that an individual or a society can make a distinction. His arguments begin with him giving us types of moral relativism; Meta ethical relativism and normative relativism. He also talks about common moral values and natural laws, views that counterattack relativism.

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.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute moral standard that is applicable to any person at any place at any given time. It suggests that there are situations in which certain behavior that would normally be considered “wrong” can actually be considered “right”. Moral relativism has played an increasingly significant role in today’s society, particularly regarding the differences between the countries of the world. This essay will summarize and explain both arguments in favor of and against moral relativism. Despite what many relativists believe, the arguments against are not only stronger, but also more accurate.

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.

From a relativist's perspective, moral values are only applicable within certain cultures and societies. Something that may be viewed as morally correct in the United States could be unethical in Zimbabwe and vice versa. For example, in Somalia, it is acceptable, or moral for a family to kill a female family member if she is raped, while here in the United States the murder of a family member is viewed as extremely unethical and cruel. A more simplistic example of this is the fact that it is not unethical in American culture to consume beef, while in India it is viewed as unethical. The reason for this is because of the diverse cultures and their own set of moral standards. This theory states that there are many values and ideas that can be considered morally correct while disagreeing with one another. However, there are also few downsides to this theory. Relativism may lead to immorality because of opposing perspectives and cultures. Just because one culture views something as good or bad, right or wrong, does not mean this is true. This theory is based off of personal preferences and values, which can lead to conflict and clashing of values. Relativism also does a poor job of establishing an absolute set of ethics, and does not take into consideration that the values and norms of a society can change over time.

The concept of moral relativism, the idea that morals are relative to personal and historical

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.

Cultural Relativism is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person.

Moral relativism is the belief that there is no universal moral truth. Instead of seeking objective principles to guide their decisions, moral relativists look toward moral standards their cultural, social, historical, and personal circumstances. They do not view right and wrong as absolutes, but as personal opinions. True moral relativists have no ground to judge another person’s actions, as they believe each person has their own set of moral beliefs. Therefore, they cannot be judged as wrong if others disagree with their decisions. As Marquis de Sade, a French philosopher and politician, once said, “There is no action. . . that is truly criminal; or one that

There are three types of relativism as described by Richard Brandt in his paper Ethical Relativism. The first is descriptive relativism, which is actually a theory that simply states that there is a disagreement about morality between people (Brandt, 25). An example of descriptive relativism is cultural relativism, which states that cultures disagree on morality (Brandt, 25). This is considered a state of fact and is merely

Moral relativism is the belief that moral principles depends on cultural acceptance, or a subjective point of view. We get to see how subjective it can be reading Henrik Ibsen’s play, The Enemy of the People (Pojman 166). The play is about a doctor (Stockman) in a Norwegian town, who learns that the water used in the towns baths is contaminated. Dr. Stockman feels morally obligated to inform people of his findings. His brother Peter, is the town’s mayor. Peter does not think the people need to know about the water and warns his brother to keep silent. Dr. Stockman rejects his brother’s warnings. Doing so, results in the doctor becoming an outcast. I can imagine the dilemma that the doctor faced. He is aware of the revenue that the baths generate for his hometown. Yet, he is also ethically responsible as a doctor to notify citizen about the harm that the baths will cause. I was surprised at the people’s response to the doctor. He tells them the truth, but they reject it. Their actions highlight some issues of moral relativism.