What Is Ethical Relativism?

Based on Western philosophical traditions, human rights are understood to be universal and objective (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948), an understanding that poses unique challenges when imagining human rights in the 21st Century. Over the last fifty years, critique of human rights discourse has evolved into discrete areas, which include feminism and cultural relativism. Feminists and cultural relativists often take opposing positions, with cultural relativist views seen as dominant over feminist discourse (Byrnes 1992). Not surprisingly, this creates tension between the two and limited their ability to collaborate and create more inclusive human rights discourses.

I do not believe that relativism would work as a universal theory. Everybody has their own morals and beliefs. What one individual believes is right may be completely different from what another individual might believe. Relativism may work as a universal theory within certain cultures and societies but not likely among individuals. There are certain cultures that share the same customs and beliefs but individuals from different cultures may have completely different views of what is right or wrong. Supporters of ethical relativism believe that there is no universal beliefs that

There are disadvantages to having a presence of moral relativism. There is a chance that people will abuse their power to have individual perceptions of right and wrong. Since each culture has their own

The concept of the universal declaration of human rights is to give everyone equal rights and to take away single incidents or “accidents”. The value of people’s views keep peace and justice in the world. The quote “whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of justice and peace in the world” (UN Commission 1-3). The text also explains how the man is inclined to the right of other men and the ability to provide justice does not require

On a global political stand point there was a uniting of ideas and governments; what we know today as the United Nations (UN). One of the main ideas which the UN has grown up around is ‘The individual possess rights simply by virtue of being Human’ (The Universal Declaration of human rights); which was adopted by the general assembly in 10th December 1948. This statement is reflect in the core principles

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

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.

Ethical relativism is “the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles” (Pojman). Cultural relativism, which falls under the category of ethical relativism, is the philosophical view that no culture is better than another culture when analyzing their systems of society. Cultural beliefs and assumptions are equally right along with the truth itself being relative to its environmental culture. Objective relativism is the opposite of ethical relativism and states “that there are universal moral principle, valid for all people at all times and climes” (Pojman). “Let’s consider the following situation: a group of people sneak up on someone and beat them up, just for the fun of it. Ruth Benedict, an American anthropologist and folklorist,

In the PowerPoint, it describes what Ethical Relativism is. The definition states: “We should not pass judgment on practices in other cultures when we don’t understand them.” Yes, United Nations observers may have confirmed persecution of an ethnic minority, including rape and murder, but before we pass any judgment or try to force any laws on different countries, we need to remember that what we think is morally acceptable may differ from everyone else. We do not want to come off thinking that our beliefs in our couture are superior over other cultures.

Despite the relativity of ethical decisions, individuals and cultures have fundamental values that serve as common ground. By adopting fundamental values, the bridge between relativism and universalism can begin to develop. Swidler (2007) created the “Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic,” with assistance from his long-time friend Hans Kuang. Swidler’s version of this universal declaration proposes specific fundamental values concerned with human rights, justice and peace, and environment conservation (para. 53). He discusses how the “Golden Rule” has served as a fundamental value for many cultures for thousands of years (para. 33). Swidler’s section of presuppositions in the declaration provides some fundamental values for the universal standard of good. In this section, Swidler suggest that humans have three specific obligations (1) to respect and protect another’s dignity, (2) to do good and avoid evil, and (3) to act conscientiously (para. 66-68). These obligations suggested by Swidler also further contribute to the concepts of right and wrong and ethical arguments created by the three frameworks.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a universal document that is likely acceptable and applicable for everyone. The UDHR identifies basic human rights that are based on the theory of Universalism. On the other hand, relativist claims that human rights are culturally dependent, and that no moral values can be made to apply to all cultures. Second notion is the UDHR are product of western political perspectives, such as Magna Carta of the UK, the American Bill of Rights, and the French revolution. Looking at these different theories about relativism from the Kevin Avruch's piece of reading, I believe that all three forms of relativism (descriptive, normative, and epistemic) contradicts the claim by the principles of the UDHR.

Different cultures view ethics in different ways. I think that moral relativism should be viewed the same way all across the world. Some cultures praise the wrong doing of their people and celebrate their behavior whether it is wrong or right. Other cultures, will shun a group or individual if he/she was doing something unethical.

The issue with Dahre’s solution of relative universalism is that it is just a reclassification of what already exists. It is important to understand cultural relativism and universalism to understand why relative universalism is simply a reclassification, and how it fails to facilitate further innovation. Both quotes from the World Conference on Human Rights, which were Dahre’s supporting points, say that the UDHR is universal. Subsequently, the conference also stated that external factors such as culture, religion, and other particularities, “Must be borne in mind” (Dahre, 612). Comparing these two defining quotes to Dahre’s relative universalism shows a striking similarity. Relative universalism is said to be the integration of universalism and relativism without trying to find “Some moral space in-between” (Dahre, 611). What Dahre believed to be the solution already exists in the fundamentals relativism and universalisms relationship. Furthermore, the difference is that Dahre essentially argues to stop the pursuit of a middle ground. When referring to the “middle ground” (Dahre, 611) it is interpreted as being the solution of the

However, this is debated which I will go into more detail later on. It had the inspiration to promote friendly relations between nations and it is emphasised that all nations should cooperate. Though, this can be said to be naive as to go as far to declare that all countries abide by the Declaration and that it is universal is mistaken. What does it mean to be universal? The concept believes that human rights belong to all human being and that it is fundamental and essential to every type of society. Those who disagree that human rights are universal believe that human rights are based on your culture, it has to be understood that a right for one group maybe outright intolerable to members of another group. Human rights are being viewed as being too ‘Western’ and representing specific cultural norms and belief system of some cultures and societies rather than all. This is the cultural relativist argument, the belief that human rights cannot be applied to non-Western nations. The belief has been endorsed by many political leaders, Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew suggested that the ‘Western concepts of democracy and human rights will not work in Asia, by explaining that the West is too individualistic compared to family-orientated Asia. ‘What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value? Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is

The first problematic feature of normative ethical relativism is based on the claim that moral principles cannot be validated on a universal level. This means that different cultures should be free to establish their own principles and basic values as a foundation for morality. As a result, correct moral principles are based on the views of the majority or predominant population. Therefore it would be wrong for any minority group to criticise against the moral views held by the majority population in a society at any given time because the minority will always be wrong in virtue by default because they hold the minority view. It is easy to see why this feature is problematic. This feature in practice leads to inequality and unfairness towards the people within a society. This may result in minorities being faced with a great danger of being oppressed by the majority. An example of this is Nazi Germany and the holocaust. This feature is contradictory with the main message behind normative ethical relativism in terms promoting equality among all.